NOTES 


ON 


THOMAS  JEFFERSON 


A  CITIZEN  OF  MARYLAND. 


-vv\         ^  o-V» 


PHILADELPHIA: 

SHERMAN   &    CO.,    PRINTERS. 

1885. 


A- 


Copyright,  1885,  by  LLOYD  D.  SIMPSON. 

ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED. 


i  RIGHTS 
/i 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I.  PAGE 

Introduction, 9 

CHAPTER  II. 
Jefferson's  Political  Animosity, 12 

CHAPTER  III. 
His  Aversion  to  Official  Life, 16 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Jefferson  and  Presidential  Re-eligibility, 21 

CHAPTER  V. 
Jefferson  and  Religion, 29 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Purchase  of  Louisiana, 40 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Some  Tergiversations,  Self-contradictions,  and  Inconsistencies,      .       44 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Jefferson's  Apprehensions  of  Monarchy, 56 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Jefferson  and  The  Declaration  of  Independence, 61 

CHAPTER  X. 
Remarkable  Political  Theories, 72 

CHAPTER  XL 
Are  his  "Ana"  reliable? 86 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Jefferson  as  Governor,  in  Time  of  War, 89 

348647 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIII.  PAGE 

His  Indirectness 102 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Jefferson  and  Genet, 106 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Jefferson  as  a  Demagogue, 114 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Jefferson  and  Burr, 118 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Jefferson's  Slanders  of  Hamilton,        134 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Jefferson  and  Washington, 146 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

-x~~rvJefferson's  Opinion  of  Riots  and  Insurrections, 160 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Some  Evidence  of  his  Insincerity, 163 

CHAPTER  XXI.' 

s~^  Jefferson  and  The  French  Revolution, 177 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
.  Effects  of  His  Life  and  Doctrines, 179 


NOTES  ON  THOMAS  JEFFERSON. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

FOR  obvious  reasons,  whatever  pertains  to  Thomas  Jef 
ferson  possesses  an  interest  for  all  Americans.  But  he  has 
exercised  so  prevalent  and  permanent  an  influence  upon 
political  thought  and  action  in  this  Republic,  that  a  study 
of  his  character  must  needs  prove  not  only  interesting,  but 
profitable  to  its  citizens. 

This  study  is,  moreover,  invested  with  a  unique  attraction 
by  the  fact  that  the  character  and  career  of  no  other  prom 
inent  person  of  our  Revolutionary  era,  have  elicited  such 
conflicting  opinions  as  the  character  and  career  of  Jefferson. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  has  been  eulogized  as  a  wise  statesman, 
a  man  of  extraordinary  erudition — a  profound  philosopher. 
On  the  other,  his  statesmanship  has  been  ridiculed,  his 
learning  pronounced  limited  as  well  as  superficial,  and  his 
philosophy  branded  as  empirical.  Thousands  admire  and 
love  him  because  they  are  convinced  that  he  was  a  sincere 
friend  of  political  equality  •  many  assert  that  he  was  a 
demagogue,  feigning  affection  for  the  people,  in  order  that 
he  might  use  them  for  promoting  his  own  aggrandizement. 
Some  think  he  was  happiest  in  retirement — that  he 
accepted  only  such  honors  as  were  thrust  upon  him — and 

2 


v  ON 

those  reluctantly;  others  are  persuaded  that  he  was  tor 
mented  by  a  consuming  ambition, — that  he  thirsted  for 
preferment,  and  was  not  very  scrupulous  as  to  the  means 
which  he  used  to  obtain  it.  Some  regard  him  as  a  simple- 
minded,  ingenuous  man;  others  characterize  him  as  supple 
and  crafty,  capable  of  making  himself  "  all  things  to  all 
men,"  in  order  to  accomplish  his  selfish  purposes.  Some 
describe  him  as  gentle  and  amiable  ;  others  declare  that  he 
was  capable  of  intense  malignity.  One  extols  him  as  exem 
plary  in  his  private  walk  and  conversation  ;  another  offers 
to  prove  that  he  stooped  to  repulsive  infractions  of  the  law 
of  chastity. 

This  conflict  of  opinion,  it  is  believed,  results  mainly 
from  three  causes:  1.  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  leader  of  a 
political  party,  at  a  time  when  party  spirit  was  violent. 
His  partisans  concealed  his  faults,  magnified  his  merits,  and 
ascribed  to  him  virtues  that  he  did  not  possess.  His  po 
litical  opponents,  in  their  turn,  decried  him,  exaggerating  the 
defects  of  his  nature,  and  charging  him  with  ignoble  actions 
upon  insufficient  evidence.  2.  He  held  little  direct  com 
munication  with  the  people;  while  it  was  commonly  under 
stood  that  he  was  warmly  attached  to  popular  government, 
his  views  on  specific  measures  of  public  policy,  or  his  opin 
ion  respecting  the  doctrines  held  by  any  statesman  were 
generally  expressed,  at  first,  only  to  a  few  trusted  friends, 
whose  province  it  was  to  consider  them,  and  if  they  were 
approved,  make  them  known  to  others.  Some  of  these  views 
and  opinions  were  not  communicated  to  the  multitude. 
Some  that  were  transmitted  to  the  people  were  mutilated 
in  their  transmission  :  others,  so  transmitted,  were  distorted 
or  colored  by  the  personal  theories  or  prejudices  of  those  to 
whom  they  were  originally  imparted.  3.  He  not  infre 
quently  employed  ambiguous  forms  of  expression. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  11 

The  publication,  in  1853,  of  Jefferson's  confidential  cor 
respondence,  his  Ana  and  other  productions  of  his,  not 
before  given  to  the  world,  has  furnished  all  who  will  use 
them  with  data  sufficient  for  forming  a  correct  judgment 
concerning  him  and  his  whole  career.  No  attempt  to  per 
form  a  work  so  important  and  extensive  has  been  made  in 
the  following  notes;  but  it  is  hoped  that  they  will  throw 
light  on  some  of  his  peculiar  doctrines,  and  illustrate  some 
traits  of  his  character,  that  heretofore  have  been  either  too 
little  known,  or  too  much  disregarded. 


12  NOTES   ON 


CHAPTER  II. 
JEFFERSON'S  POLITICAL   ANIMOSITY. 

JEFFERSON,  though  a  "  mild-mannered  man/'  frequently 
employed  acrimonious  language  respecting  those  who  dif 
fered  from  him  politically.  In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Madison, 
dated  December  28th,  1794,  he  styled  the  Senate  "the 
Augean  stable  :"  he  designated  the  majority  of  that  body 
as  "his  opponents,"  as  "monocrats;"  he  declared  that  the 
Cincinnati  were  "  lowering  over  the  Constitution  eter 
nally;"  he  characterized  the  excise  law  of  1791  as  "an 
infernal  law;"  he  said  the  Government  was  "patient 
of  the  kicks  and  scoffs  of  our  enemies,"  but  rose  "  at  a 
feather  against  our  friends,"  to  wit,  the  whiskey  insurrec 
tionists  of  Pennsylvania.  The  epithet  "anglo-men,"  he 
frequently  applies  to  the  Federalists.  He  alludes  to  "the 
corrupt  squadron  "  of  Congress,  "  debauched  "  by  the  secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury.  He  declared  that  Hamilton  believed 
in  a  monarchy  "  bottomed  on  corruption," — that  the  public 
funds  were  "a  contrivance  invented  for  the  purposes  of  cor 
ruption."  His  letter  of  March  29th,  1801,  to  Elbridge 
Gerry,  contains  numerous  vindictive  passages,  in  some  of 
which  his  bitterness  is  enveloped  in  circumlocution — in 
others,  it  is  but  too  clearly  expressed.  We  cite  some  of 
them.  "  We  may  now  say  that  the  United  States,  south 
wardly  from  New  York,  are  as  unanimous  in  the  principles 
of  76  as  they  were  in  '76.  The  only  difference  is,  that 
the  leaders  who  remain  behind  are  more  numerous  and 
bolder  than  the  apostles  of  toryism  in  1776.  The  reason 


THOMAS    JEFFER8OX.  13 

is  that  we  are  now  justly  more  tolerant  than  we  could  safely 
have  been  then."  (Mark  how  ingeniously  he  endeavors  to 
place  upon  prominent  Federalists  the  stigma  of  toryism.) 
"A  coalition  of  sentiments  is  not  for  the  interest  of  the 
printers;  they,  like  the  clergy,  live  by  the  zeal  they  can 
kindle,  and  the  schisms  they  can  create."  "  The  mild  and 
simple  principles  of  the  Christian  philosophy  would  produce 
too  much  calm,  too  much  regularity  of  good,  to  extract 
from  its  disciples  a  support  for  a  numerous  priesthood,  were 
they  not  to  sophisticate  it,  ramify  it,  split  it  into  hairs,  and 
twist  its  texts  till  they  cover  the  divine  morality  of  its 
author  with  mysteries,  and  require  a  priesthood  to  explain 
them."  "Your  part  of  the  Union,  though  as  absolutely 
republican  as  ours,  has  drunk  deeper  of  the  delusion  "  (op 
position  to  republicanism) "  The  segis  of  govern 
ment,  and  the  temples  of  religion  and  of  justice,  have  all 
been  prostituted  there,  to  toll  us  back  to  the  times  when 
we  burnt  witches.  The  people  will  support  you,  notwith 
standing  the  bowlings  of  the  ravenous  crew  from  whose 
jaws  they  are  escaping."  According  to  Jefferson,  those 
opposed  to  Republicanism  were  "  apostates,"  whose  heads 
had  been  "  shorn  by  the  Harlot  of  England  :" — "  a  faction 
of  monocrats:" — the  friends  of  Washington  were  "the 
satellites  and  sycophants"  about  the  President — the  publi 
cations  and  newspapers  of  the  Federalists  were  "  The 
slanderous  chronicles  of  Federalism  " — the  supporters  of 
Hamilton  were  "  votaries  to  the  treasury,"  "  the  stock 
jobbing  herd,"— and  the  $20,000,000  of  stock  issued  on 
the  assumption  of  the  state  debts  was  "a  pabulum  thrown 
in  "  to  this  "stock-jobbing  herd  ;" — they  who  favored  the 
assumption  of  the  debts  by  the  General  Government  and 
the  funding  of  the  debts  thus  assumed,  together  with  the 
national  debt,  were  "gamblers  .in  these  scenes;"  the  Feder- 


14  NOTES    OX 

alists  of  Massachusetts  were  "venal  traitors."  Jefferson 
wrote  that  Hamilton's  "career  from  the  moment  history 
could  stoop  to  notice  him,"  was  "a  tissue  of  machinations 
against  the  liberty  of  a  country,  which  had  not  only  received 
and  fed  him,  but  heaped  its  honors  on  his  head  " — that 
"  the  more  debt  Hamilton  could  rake  up,  the  more  plunder 
for  his  mercenaries."  This  curious  paragraph  occurs  in  one 
of  his  letters :  "  Washington  naked  would  hare  been  sanctimo 
niously  reverenced,  but  enveloped  in  the  rags  of  royalty, 
they  can  hardly  be  torn  off  without  laceration."  His  wrath 
against  those  opposed  to  democracy  waxed  so  hot,  that  he 
found  no  English  words  adequate  to  its  expression — he 
must  needs  resort  to  the  Greek  :  he  calls  the  advocates  of  a 
strong  government,"  "  Energumenoi  of  royalism."  It  is 
submitted  that  a  man  who  could  name  his  opponents  "  ener- 
gumenoi,"  must  have  been  possessed  by  a  fury  of  no 
common  order.  Had  Jefferson  applied  this  fearful  epithet 
to  Hamilton  and  Adams  in  their  hearing,  he  might  have 
produced  upon  them  the  same  effect  that  Daniel  O'Connell 
did  upon  the  Billingsgate  woman,  when  he  styled  her  a 
parallelopipedon.  In  a  letter  dated  August  14th,  1811,  and 
addressed  to  General  Dearborn  of  Massachusetts,  Jefferson 
applauds  Elbridge  Gerry,  then  the  recently  elected  governor 
of  that  state,  for  removing  Federalists  from  office,  commend 
ing  the  governor  "  for  the  rasping  with  which  he  rubbed 
down  his  bed  of  traitors."  "  Let  them  have  justice,"  he 
adds,  "  and  protection  from  violence,  but  no  favor.  Powers 
and  pre-eminences  conferred  on  them  are  daggers  put  into 
the  hands  of  assassins,  to  be  plunged  in  our  bosoms  the  moment 
the  thrust  can  go  home  to  the  heart."  He  further  expresses 
to  the  general  his  apprehension  that  the  Federalists,  if  they 
regain  power,  will  resort  to  deportation  and  the  guillotine. 
The  actions  and  expressions  of  those  engaged  in  a  violent 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  15 

political  contest  should  not  be  judged  too  harshly,  but  this 
letter  written  from  the  seclusion  of  Monticello,  long  after 
Jefferson  had  ceased  all  personal  participation  in  the  strife 
of  contending  parties,  is  a  melancholy  exhibition  of  political 
venom. 


NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER  III. 

HIS    AVERSION    TO    OFFICIAL    LIFE. 

IN   1781,  shortly  after  he  resigned  the  governorship   of 
Virginia,  deeply  chagrined  by  the  strictures  upon  his  man 
agement,  of  affairs,  during  the  invasions   of   Arnold   and 
General  Tarleton,  Jefferson  wrote  to  a  friend  that  "  every 
fibre  of  his  political  ambition  was  eradicated,"  and  that  he 
would  never  return  to  public  life.     The  next  year,  he  ac 
cepted  the  position  of  a  commissioner  to  treat  for  peace 
with   Great   Britain.     He,  however,  took   no  part   in   the 
negotiations;  in  fact  did  not  quit  the  country,  a  provisional 
treaty  having  been  signed  before  he  could  sail,  by  the  other 
commissioners  already  in  Europe.     In  June,  1783,  he  was 
chosen  a  delegate  to  Congress.     In  1784  he  was  appointed 
to  assist   Benjamin  Franklin   and   John  Adams  in    nego 
tiating  treaties  of  commerce  with  various  European  States. 
Shortly  after  his  arrival  in   Europe,  in   pursuance  of  this 
mission,  he  was  appointed   minister  at   the  Court  of  Ver 
sailles.     It  thus  appears  that,  within  a  period  of  less  than 
five  years,  after  declaring  his  disgust  at  popular  ingratitude 
and  his  determination  never  again   to  enter  public  life,  he 
accepted   four  official   positions.     Before   leaving   France, 
which  he  did  in  1789,  he  received  from  Mr.  Madison   a 
letter,  asking  whether  he  would  accept  an  appointment  at 
home.     He  replied  that  he  desired  retirement;  that  all  his 
appointments  to  office  had  been  contrary  to  his  wishes,  and 
that  he   had  resigned  the   French  mission  in  order  "  to  re 
sume  his  agricultural  pursuits,  and  the  enjoyment  of  total 


THOMAS    JEFFEKSOX.  17 

seclusion  and  rest."  He  reached  Monticello  on  December 
23d,  1789.  On  March  1st,  1790,  he  again  quitted  his  home 
for  the  purpose  of  assuming  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State 
under  Washington,  having  pursued  agriculture  and  enjoyed 
seclusion  and  rest  for  two  months  and  eight  days.  He  held 
that  position  till  the  expiration  of  Washington's  first  term, 
and  took  the  same  place  under  Washington's  second  admin 
istration.  In  his  letter  of  December  31st,  1793,  announc 
ing  to  the  President  his  resignation  of  office,  Jefferson 
writes,  "  My  propensity  to  retirement  is  becoming  daily 
more  and  more  irresistible."  On  December  28th,  1794,  he 
writes  Mr.  Madison,  "I  would  not  give  up  my  own  retire 
ment  for  the  empire  of  the  universe."  In  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Madison  of  April  27th,  1795,  he  repeats  his  determination 
to  remain  in  private  life,  assigning  as  reasons  therefor,  "  My 
health  is  entirely  broken  down,  .  .  .  my  age  requires  that 
I  should  place  my  affairs  in  a  clear  state,  .  .  .  and  above 
all,  the  deliglitsJL  feel  in  the  society  of  my  family  and  in 
agricultural  pursuits ;"  he  assures  Mr.  Madison  that  the 
writer  is  not  to  be  reasoned  out  of  his  resolution,  and  ap 
parently,  with  the  view  of  preventing  all  attempts  in  that 
direction,  he  adds,  "  The  question  is  forever  dosed  with  me." 
On  June  19th,  1796,  he  advised  General  Washington 
that  he  was  devoting  himself  to  the  cultivation  of  "  lucerne, 
pease  and  potatoes,"  and  took  no  concern  in  politics  and 
public  measures.  In  October  of  the  same  year,  Mr.  Jeffer 
son,  notwithstanding  his  lack  of  interest  in  politics,  was 
chosen  Vice-President  of  the  United  States.  He  doubt 
less  declined  the  proffered  dignity.  They  who  entertain 
that  idea  have  a  very  erroneous  conception  of  Mr.  Jeffer 
son's  character.  He  was  not  the  man  to  disregard  the  call 
of  his  country.  A  few  weeks  after  the  news  of  his  election 
was  confirmed,  he  left  Monticello,  casting,  we  may  well  be- 


18  NOTES    ON 

lieve,  "many  a  longing,  lingering  look  behind,"  upon  his 
"  lucerne,  pease  and  potatoes/' and  journeyed  to  Philadel 
phia,  then  the  seat  of  the  Federal  Government,  where  he 
was  inducted  into  the  office  of  Vice-President.  While  still 
holding  this  position,  the  Presidential  election  of  1800  took 
place.  When  the  electoral  votes  were  counted,  it  appeared 
that  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Aaron  Burr  had  received  the  same 
number.  There  was,  consequently,  no  choice  by  the  Elec 
toral  College,  and  the  duty  of  choosing  a  President  was 
devolved  upon  the  House  of  Representatives.  Into  the 
long  and  bitter  contest  that  ensued,  Mr.  Jefferson  warmly 
entered,  seemingly  forgetful  of  the  charms  of  retirement  in 
his  zeal  for  the  success  of  the  great  party  with  which  he 
was  now  identified. 

The  contest,  as  is  well  known,  resulted  in  the  choice  of 
"the  sage  of  Monticello,"  who  thereupon  took  up  his  resi 
dence  in  the  White  House.  In  the  spring  of  1804,  he  com 
municated  to  Mr.  Page  the  fact  that  he  was  looking  for 
ward  to  "  domestic  comfort,"  at  the  expiration  of  his  official 
term.  But,  re-elected  President  in  the  autumn  of  that 
year,  his  desire  to  promote  the  welfare  of  his  fellow-citi 
zens,  from  whom  he  could  withhold  nothing  in  his  power 
to  grant,  impelled  him  again  to  postpone  the  coveted  enjoy 
ment  of  domestic  comfort.  Yet  the  old  feeling  was  strong 
upon  him.  Though  crowned  with  honors  and  enshrined  in 
the  hearts  of  his  countrymen,  he  yearned  for  the  seclusion 
of  his  rural  home.  That  this  is  true,  we  know  from  a  letter 
written  shortly  after  his  re-election  to  Elbridge  Gerry.  In 
it  the  President  states  that  his  great  desire  had  "  been  to 
retire  at  the  end  of  the  present  term  to  a  life  of  tranquility, 
and  it  was  my  decided  purpose  when  I  entered  into  office." 
It  thus  appears  that  he  not  only  desired,  but  had  purposed 
retirement.  Twice  in  the  letter  he  expresses  the  ever-re- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  19 

curring  wish  "  to  enjoy  my  family,  my  farm  and  my  books." 
He  did  not,  however,  selfishly  resign,  as  many  men  with 
his  intense  longing  for  retirement,  would  have  done.  He 
conceived  that  the  exigencies  of  the  time  demanded  his  con 
tinuance  "at  the  helm,"  and  rightly  concluding  that  per 
sonal  feelings  must  be  disregarded  when  national  interests 
are  at  stake,  he  bore,  without  a  murmur,  four  years  longer, 
his  painful  separation  from  the  beloved  objects  above  men 
tioned. 

The  example  of  Mr.  Jefferson  in  this  regard  is  com 
mended  to  the  youth  of  the  country.  His  devotion  to  pub 
lic  duty  was  as  rare  as  it  was  admirable.  Quite  unfitted, 
as  he  intimates,  to  brave  the  storms  which  all,  who  then  em 
barked  on  the  sea  of  American  politics,  would  inevitably 
encounter,  he  nevertheless,  again  and  again,  at  the  call  of 
his  country,  tried  that  tempestuous  sea.  Though  feeling  an 
aversion  to  the  duties  of  office  so  strong,  that  he  character 
izes  the  discharge  of  some  of  them  as  a  "martyrdom,"  he 
twelve  times  yielded  to  the  importunities  of  the  people 
when  they  demanded  his  services.  Delighting  in  agricul 
tural  pursuits,  ever  longing  for  the  quiet  and  seclusion  of 
his  pleasant  home;  harassed  by  a  propensity  for  retirement, 
which,  as  he  declared,  became  at  times  irresistible ;  so  pro 
foundly  interested  in  "  lucerne,  pease  and  potatoes,"  that 
neither  the  lapse  of  time,  nor  protracted  absence,  nor  affairs 
of  state,  caused  him  to  forget  those  useful  vegetables,  he  yet 
remained  in  public  life,  with  brief  intervals,  for  a  period 
of  forty  years.  Behold  in  Jefferson  a  man  whose  strong 
patriotism  subdued  and  held  in  bondage  his  cherished  aims 
and  desires.  The  envious  or  the  hostile  might  indeed  ac 
cuse  him  of  vacillation,  or  hint  at  insincerity,  because  he 
several  times  accepted  office  after  having  twice  expressed 
his  fixed  determination  never  again  to  do  so,  but  such 


20  NOTES   OX 

frivolous  charges  and  insinuations  were  unheard  or  un 
heeded,  so  absorbed  was  he  in  the  great  work  of  saving 
our  republican  institutions  from  the  assaults  of  the 
Federalists. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  21 


CHAPTER   IV. 

JEFFERSON    AND    PRESIDENTIAL    RE-ELIGIBILITY. 

ON  November  3d,  1787,  Mr.  Jefferson,  then  in  Paris,  in 
a  letter  to  John  Adams,  expresses  strong  disapprobation  of 
the  re-eligibility  of  the  President,  permitted  by  the  new 
Constitution.  He  writes :  "  Once  in  office  and  possessing 
the  military  force  of  the  Union,  .  .  he  would  not  be 
easily  dethroned,  even  if  the  people  could  be  induced  to 
withdraw  their  votes  from  him."  .  .  "  I  wish  at  the 
end  of  the  four  years  they  had  made  him  forever  in 
eligible  a  second  time."  In  March,  1789,  he  writes  to  F. 
Hopkinson :  "Since  the  thing  (Constitution)  has  been 
established,  I  would  wish  it  not  to  be  altered  during  the 
life  of  our  great  leader,  who  alone,  by  the  authority  of  his 
name  and  the  confidence  reposed  in  his  perfect  integrity,  is 
fully  qualified  to  put  the  new  Government  so  under  way  as 
to  secure  it  against  the  efforts  of  opposition,"  but  hopes 
the  Constitution  will  be  corrected  the  moment  "  we  can  no 
longer  have  the  same  name  at,  the  helm."  We  can  well 
understand  how  the  pre-eminent  services  rendered  to  his 
country  by  Washington  might  induce  Mr.  Jefferson  to 
waive  his  opposition  to  re-eligibility  in  the  case  of  that 
"great  leader,"  but  in  view  of  his  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  his 
willingness  to  have  Washington  continuously  re-elected  for 
life,  is  somewhat  surprising.  It  has  not  escaped  observa 
tion  that  when  he  expressed  this  willingness,  Washington 
was  President-elect,  that  Jefferson  was  then  anxious  to  be 
re-called  from  France,  that  he  soon  returned  to  the  United 


22  NOTES    ON 

States,  and  that  in  less  than  two  months  after  reaching 
home,  he  had  received  and  accepted  the  appointment  of  Sec 
retary  of  State.  It  will  be  noted,  that  in  the  first  letter  the 
writer's  estimate  of  the  President's  power  is  very  .different 
from  the  estimate  placed  upon  it  in  the  second.  In  the 
former,  he  apprehended  that  the  Chief  Executive  will  with 
difficulty  be  " dethroned,  even  if  the  people  withdraw  their 
votes  from  him."  In  the  latter,  he  doubts  whether  any 
President  save  Washington  can  sustain  the  new  Govern 
ment  until  it  gets  well  under  way.  In  November,  1787, 
he  fears  the  powers  and  privileges  conferred  by  the  Consti 
tution  upon  the  President  will  enable  whoever  is  chosen,  to 
perpetuate  his  authority  in  defiance  of  law  and  the  will  of 
the  people.  In  March,  1789,  he  thinks  that  during  the 
early  days  of  the  Republic,  there  will  probably  be  but  one 
man  in  the  nation  strong  enough  to  retain  the  office  of 
President  until  the  expiration  of  his  constitutional  term. 
The  year  1807  witnessed  a  further  change  in  his  views, 
either  as  to  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  President,  or  as 
to  the  influence  of  Washington.  We  quote  from  Mr.  Jef 
ferson's  notes  in  the  fifth  volume  of  Marshall's  Life  of 
Washington,  published  in  that  year:  "I  am  satisfied  that 
Washington  had  no  wish  to  perpetuate  his  authority;  but 
he  who  supposes  it  was  practicable,  had  he  wished  it, 
knows  nothing  of  the  spirit  of  America."  Here,  far 
from  being  apprehensive  of  the  Chief  Magistrate's  power 
to  perpetuate  his  authority  beyond  his  lawful  term  of  office, 
Jeiferson  scouts  the  idea  that  even  "  our  great  leader,"  with 
his  unparalleled  popularity  and  the  weight  of -his  great 
name,  could  have  done  so. 

We  have  mentioned  Jefferson's  hope  respecting  the  cor 
rection  of  the  Constitution.  The  earnestness  with  which 
that  hope  was  expressed  warranted  the  expectation  that  he 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  23 

who  expressed  it  would  immediately,  upon  Washington's 
retirement,  endeavor  to  effect  the  correction.  But,  so  far 
as  known,  he  made  no  movement  in  that  direction.  Had 
rising  visions  of  his  own  first  and  second  terms  in  the  new 
executive  mansion,  to  be  erected  on  the  banks  of  the  Poto 
mac,  already  concealed  from  his  view  the  rocks  and  shoals 
of  re-eligibility  ?  The  world  will  never  know;  but  neither 
then,  nor  at  any  subsequent  time,  did  his  hope  ripen  into 
action.  He  lived  many  years  after  Washington  quitted 
office;  he  had  ample  leisure;  he  obtained  extraordinary 
influence  over  his  fellow-countrymen;  he  suggested  and 
aided  to  secure  the  adoption  of  several  amendments  of  the 
Constitution,  but  sank  into  the  grave  without  so  much  as 
publicly  proposing  the  amendment,  deemed  by  him  so  vitallv 
important  that  he  hoped  it  would  be  made  the  moment  Wash 
ington  abandoned  the  helm.  Not  only  did  he  make  no  at 
tempt  to  secure  that  amendment,  which  might  indeed  have 
been  a  difficult  task,  but  he  deliberately  violated  the  doctrine 
that  he  had  early  enunciated  and  strongly  advocated — he 
himself  accepted  a  re-election.  Apparently  conscious  that 
some  explanation  of  this  action  was  due  to  those  familiar  with 
his  oft-expressed  opinion,  he  writes,  "  I  sincerely  regret 
that  the  unbounded  calumnies  of  the  Federal  party  have 
obliged  me  to  throw  myself  on  the  verdict  of  my  country 
for  trial.'7  The  excuse  here  offered  for  his  dereliction  seems 
worse  than  the  fault.  He  seeks  to  justify  his  departure 
from  his  own  standard  of  good  government  by  a  consider 
ation  wholly  personal.  By  his  own  admission,  he  incon 
sistently  consented  to  a  re-election,  not  because  the  public 
welfare  demanded  it,  or  because  the  importunities  of  his 
friends  overcame  his  scruples,  but  for  the  weighty  reason 
that  his  political  opponents  calumniated  him.  One  of  his 
biographers,  commenting  upon  this  proceeding,  writes, 


24  NOTES    ON 

"How  much  of  real  glory  he  lost  by  missing  this  oppor 
tunity  of  putting  the  seal  of  sincerity  and  the  test  of  con 
sistency  on  his  original  professions,  can  only  be  estimated  by 
a  full  consideration  of  the  difficulty  attending  the  sacrifice 
of  ambition  to  principle."  Having  transgressed  himself,  he 
could  hardly  attempt  to  check  the  friends  who  followed  his 
example.  He  witnessed  the  re-election  and  inauguration 
of  Mr.  Madison  and  of  Mr.  Monroe  without  a  word  of  dis 
approbation.  On  December  10th,  1 807,  he  declined  a  third 
election,  stating  his  main  reason  therefor  as  follows  :  "  I 
should  unwillingly  be  the  person  who,  disregarding  the 
sound  precedent  set  by  an  illustrious  predecessor,  should 
furnish  the  first  example  of  prolongation  beyond  the  second 
term  of  office." 

On  September  20th,  1813,  he  writes  "  I  prefer  the  Presi 
dential  term  of  four  years  to  that  of  seven  years,  which  I 
at  first  suggested,  annexing  to  it,  however,  ineligibilitv  for 
ever  after,  and  I  wish  it  were  now  annexed  to  the  second 
quadrennial  election  of  President.7''  In  his  autobiography, 
dated  January  6th,  1821,  we  find  him  preferring  to  a  seven 
years  term  "  the  present  practice  of  allowing  a  continuance 
for  eight  years,  to  be  dropped  at  half  way  of  the  term, 
making  that  a  period  of  probation."  In  his  Ana,  under 
the  year  1792,  there  is  a  passage,  which  by  implication, 
favors  a  term  of  seven  years,  with  ineligibility  for  seven 
years  thereafter. 

To  recapitulate :  Mr.  Jefferson  originally  suggested  that 
presidential  incumbency  should  be  limited  to  a  single  term 
of  seven  years.  He  next  favored  a  single  term  of  four  years. 

Scarcely  fifteen  months  had  elapsed,  when  he  desired 
Washington's  continuous  re-election  during  life,  but  hoped 
the  provision  for  a  single  term  of  four  years  would  be  in 
corporated  in  the  Constitution,  as  soon  as  practicable  after 


THOMAS    JEFFEKSOX.  25 

Washington's  retirement.  In  1792,  he  favors  a  term  of 
seven  years,  to  be  followed  by  a  seven  years  interval  of  in- 
eligibility.  His  next  known  opinion  on  the  subject,  is 
found  in  the  letters  declining  a  third  election.  In  these  he 
makes  no  mention  of  the  evils  of  re-eligibility,  indirectly 
favors  two  successive  terms  of  four  years  each,  mildly  dis 
approves  three  successive  elections,  and  says  nothing  of 
eligibility  after  an  interval.  In  1813,  bidding  a  final  adieu 
to  his  first  choice — a  seven  years  term,  he  prefers  a  presi 
dential  term  of  four  years  and  wishes  ineligibility  "  annexed 
to  the  second  quadrennial  election,"  by  a  change  in  the 
fundamental  law.  Finally,  in  1821,  having  abandoned,  as 
it  seems,  either  the  wish  or  the  hope  of  securing  such  an 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  as  he  had  suggested,  he  sets 
the  seal  of  his  approbation  upon  the  practice  of  "  allowing 
a  continuance  for  eight  years,  with  a  liability  to  be  dropped 
at  half-way  of  the  term" — as  he  curiously  expresses  it. 
Here  we  have  a  menu  of  opinion's  so  varied  as  to  suit  all 
tastes.  How  well  Mr.  Jefferson's  actions  tallied  with  his 
professed  opinions  on  the  question  of  re-eligibility,  is  written 
in  the  annals  of  the  nation.  He,  as  has  been  intimated, 
expressed  fears  that  re-eligibility  would  prove  detrimental 
to  the  country.  Should  his  worst  apprehensions  in  regard 
to  its  evil  effects  be  realized,  should  the  presidency  be 
transformed  by  re-eligibility  into  an  office  for  life,  as  he 
asserted  it  would  be,  upon  himself  must  rest  the  chief,  if  not 
the  sole  responsibility  for  this  and  all  other  ills  springing 
from  the  same  source.  For,  although  the  re-election  of  the 
president  is  theoretically  permitted  by  the  Constitution,  it 
became  an  actuality  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Jefferson 
and  those  whose  political  movements  he  controlled.  The 
acceptance,  in  immediate  succession,  of  a  second  term  by 
Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  firmly  established  the  prac- 

3 


26  NOTES    ON 

tice  of  re-electing  a  president,  before  the  expiration  of  his 
first  term.  It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  neither  Mr. 
Madison  nor  Mr.  Monroe  would  have  consented  to  a  re 
election  had  Mr.  Jefferson  refused  it,  and  advised  them  to 
follow  his  example,  for  in  matters  political,  he  was  their 
"guide,  philosopher,  and  friend."  Nor  can  the  second 
election  of  Washington  be  pleaded  as  a  precedent,  because 
his  acceptance  thereof  was  urged  in  such  a  manner  and  for 
such  reasons  that  he  could  scarcely  refuse,  how  strong 
soever  his  reluctance  ;  and  the  condition  of  affairs  was,  at 
the  time,  quite  exceptional.  On  the  other  hand,  should 
re-eligibility  continue  as  harmless  as  it  has  shown  itself  to 
be,  during  the  past  century,  the  failure  of  Mr.  Jefferson's 
repeated  prognostications  of  its  mischievous  results  must 
greatly  diminish  our  estimate  of  his  political  sagacity.  But 
whether  re-eligibility  yield  good  or  evil  fruits,  whether 
the  forebodings  of  Mr.  Jefferson  were  groundless  or  not, 
his  own  letters  and  the  pages  of  history  clearly  show  that 
he  gave  his  example  and  his  great  influence  in  support  of 
a  governmental  principle,  which  he  had  often  reprobated 
as  pernicious,  so  pernicious  that  he  assured  a  friend  it 
"would  produce  cruel  distress  in  our  country." 

Mr.  Jefferson  has  been  much  commended  for  refusing  to 
be  President  for  more  than  two  terms.  Let  us  briefly  ex 
amine  the  history  and  incidents  of  this  refusal. 

1.  When  he  styles  Washington's  retirement  at  the  ex 
piration  of  his  second  term  a  "sound  precedent,"  he  indi 
rectly  admits  the  propriety  of  a  second  term  ;  this  admission, 
and  his  own  acceptance  of  a  re-election,  while  in  the  office 
of  President,  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  an  abandonment  of 
his  original  opinion  on  the  question  of  Presidential  re- 
eligibility — which  position  was  that  the  Executive  should 
"  forever  be  ineligible  a  second  time."  When  an  abandon- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  27 

ment  of  one's  professed  convictions  secures  continued  honor 
and  emoluments,  it  is  scarcely  a  ground  for  commenda 
tion. 

2.  Mr.  Jefferson's  disapproval  of  a  third  term  is  not  very 
strongly  expressed.     His  language  is:  "I  should  unwill 
ingly   be  the   person    who  .    .    .   should   furnish    the  first 
example  of  a  prolongation."     Observe,  he  does  not  abso 
lutely  refuse  a  third  election — not  at  all.  He  but  declares  his 
reluctance  to  be  the  first  person  who  should  disregard  the 
precedent  set  by  Washington.     He  indicates  no  calamities 
that  would  likely  result  from  a  third  term.     He  does  not 
even  state  his  own  opinion  on  the  subject, 

3.  He  adduces  as  additional   reasons  for  declining,  the 
burdens  and  infirmities  of  increasing  years,  and  his  strong 
desire  to  enjoy  the  repose  of  private  life. 

4.  The  evils  to  be  apprehended  from  the  re-eligibility  of 
an  actual  incumbent  are  the  same  whether  re-eligible  for 
one  or  for  two  terms.     "Once  in  office  and  possessed  of  the 
military  force  of  the  Union,   he  would  not  be  easily  de 
throned,"  are  Mr.  Jefferson's  own   words.     The  danger  of 
re-eligibility,  if  there  be  any  such  danger,  is  that  the  in 
cumbent  will  employ  his  immense  patronage  and  the  mili 
tary  forces,  of  which  he  is  commander-in-chief,  to  secure 
his  re-election.     This  danger  manifestly  begins  as  soon  as 
he  has  grasped  the  reins  of  power. 

5.  The  address  of  the  Vermont  Legislature,  in  which 
Mr.  Jefferson  is  asked  to  serve  a  third  term,  was  dated 
November  5th,  1806,  and  was  duly  received.     His  reply 
thereto,  from  which  we  have  quoted,  stating  his  unwilling 
ness,  was  written  December  10th,  1807,  more  than  a  year 
afterwards.     In  the  interim,  he  had  received  and  answered 
a   communication    from    the    Vermont    Legislature    upon 
another  subject.     Considering  this  fact,  his  guarded  Ian- 


28  NOTES    OX 

guage,  and  his  delay  in  replying  to  the  address,  we  may 
not  uncharitably  suppose  that  when  he  received  the  same, 
he  had  not  decided  to  retire  at  the  expiration  of  the  current 
term ;  that  for  some  time  after  the  address  reached  him  he 
was  not  unwilling  to  be  re-elected ;  that  he  was  not  impelled 
to  refuse  by  fears  that  a  third  term  would  imperil  our  free 
institutions ;  that  before  determining  to  retire  he  had  well 
pondered  the  ad  vantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  movement, 
as  well  as  carefully  considered  the  probabilities  of  success  in 
the  ensuing  Presidential  campaign.  Indeed,  a  gentleman 
of  distinction,  formerly  United  States  Senator,  who  has 
given  the  subject  attention,  believes  that  Mr.  Jefferson's 
letter  in  answer  to  the  address  was  not  penned  until,  by 
diligent  inquiry,  he  had  satisfied  himself  that  his  re-election 
was  by  no  means  certain.  This  belief  derives  some  support 
from  the  fact,  that  about  the  time  he  communicated  to  the 
Vermont  Legislature  his  determination  not  to  accept  a  third 
term,  he  wrote  several  communications  of  like  tenor  to 
other  parties. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  29 


CHAPTER   V. 

JEFFERSON  AND  RELIGION. 

MR.  JEFFERSON'S  skepticism  was  known  to  some  and 
suspected  by  many  of  his  contemporaries,  but  the  nature 
and  scope  of  that  skepticism  were  only  matters  of  conjecture 
until  the  publication  of  his  private  correspondence.  This 
correspondence,  and  the  investigations  which  resulted  from 
its  being  made  putilic  seem  to  show  that  he  was  a  radical, 
uncompromising,  and  sometimes  bitter  infidel ;  that  he  had 
little  sympathy,  and  perhaps  less  respect  for  any  form  of 
religious  faith. 

He  was  the  friendly  associate  of  scoffers  and  unbelievers, 
both  native  and  foreign  born,  among  whom  may  be  men 
tioned  the  scurrilous  Paine,  Condorcet,  Cabanis,  General 
•Dearborn  and  Mr.  Freneau.  The  National  Gazette,  his 
personal  and  political  organ,  almost  entirely  under  his  con 
trol,  vilified  clergymen  and  mocked  at  religion. 

In  his  letters,  he  assails  Presbyterian  ism,  characterizes 
" the  five  points  of  Calvin"  as  "  blasphemous  absurdity," 
and  rails  at  the  theology  of  the  great  Genevan  doctor  as 
follows:  "It  would  be  more  pardonable  to  believe  in  no 
God,  than  to  blaspheme  him  by  the  atrocious  attributes  of 
Calvin."  He  styles  Presbyterians  the  "loyalists  of  our 
country."  He  madly  compares  them  to  the  Jesuits,  and  in 
a  paroxysm  of  folly,  he  pronounces  Calvin  an  atheist. 

He  writes  :  "  The  metaphysical  absurdities  of  Athanasius, 
of  Loyola,  and  of  Calvin  are  mere  relapses  into  polytheism, 
differing  from  Paganism  only  in  being  more  unintelligible." 


30  NOTES    ON 

He  vehemently  attacks  Trinitarians  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  In  one  letter,  he  thus  expresses  himself:  "I 
would  as  soon  undertake  to  bring  the  crazy  skulls  of  Bed 
lam  to  sound  understand  ing,- as  to  inculcate  reason  into  that 
of  an  Athanasian  ;  "  in  another  to  James  Smith,  is  found 
the  following:  "  Nor  was  the  unity  of  the  Supreme  Being 
ousted  from  the  Christian  creed  by  the  force  of  reason,  but 
by  the  sword  of  civil  government,  wielded  at  the  will  of 
the  fanatic  Athanasius.*  The  hocus-pocus  phantasm  of  a 
God,  like  another  Cerberus,  with  one  body  and  three  heads, 
had  its  birth  and  growth  in  the  blood  of  thousands  and 
thousands  of  martyrs/'  They,  who  witnessed  only  the  calm 
amenity  that  Jefferson  almost  invariably  displayed  to  those 
who  casually  met  him,  little  suspected  that  within  his 
bosom  there  lurked  such  venom.  In  the  same  letter,  writ 
ten  December  8th,  1822,  he  says:  "I  confidently  expect 
that  the  present  generation  will  see  Unitarianism  become 
the  general  religion  of  the  United  States/' 

While  discrediting  all  the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  singles 
out  certain  portions  and  statements  found  in  them  as 
specially  objectionable.  In  a  letter  dated  January  17th, 
1825,  to  General  Smith,  he  considers  the  Apocalypse 
"  merely  as  the  ravings  of  a  maniac, — no  more  worthy  or 
capable  of  explanation  than  the  incoherent  cries  of  our 
nightly  dreams."  In  that  letter,  or  in  one  written  about 
the  same  time,  he  predicts  "The  day  will  come  when  the 
mystical  generation  of  Jesus  in  the  womb  of  a  virgin,  by 
the  Supreme  Being  as  his  father,  will  be  classed  with  the 
generation  of  Minerva  in  the  brain  of  Jupiter.'7  Having 
branded  the  venerable  exile  of  Patinos  as  a  maniac,  he 


*  The  sword  of  civil  government  was  wielded  not  for  Athanasius, 
but  against  him.  He  was  four  times  banished  from  Alexandria,  and 
once  saved  himself  from  violence  bv  voluntary  exile. 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON. 


31 


seeks  to  disparage  the  Epistles,  labors  and  preaching  of  St. 
Paul,  by  reprobating  him  as  the  "  Coryphaeus  of  the  band 
of  dupes  and  robbers,"  who  endeavored  to  propagate  im 
postures  concerning  Christ.  We  think  no  one,  believer  or 
infidel,  except  Jefferson,  has  ever  imputed  stupidity  and  in 
sincerity  to  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  In  his 
famous  letter  to  Dr.  Rush  respecting  religious  beliefs,  he 
attempts  to  impeach  the  credibility  of  the  four  Gospels  by 
alleging,  that  they  who  undertook  to  preserve  the  doctrines 
of  Christ  "  wrote  from  memory,  and  not  till  long  after  the 
transactions  had  passed  ;"  that  Jesus  perished  at  the  age  of 
thirty-three,  before  he  had  completed  his  system  ;  that  "  the 
doctrines  which  he  really  delivered  were  defective  as  a 
whole,  and  fragments  only  of  what  he  did  deliver  have 
come  to  us  mutilated,  misstated  and  often  unintelligible." 
Yet,  with  pretended  zeal  for  what  he  is  pleased  to  term  the 
"simple"  doctrines  of  Christ,  he  writes  to  Timothy  Pick 
ering  :  "  The  religion-builders  have  so  distorted  and  de 
formed  the  doctrines  of  Jesus— so  muffled  them  in  mysti 
cisms,  fancies  and  falsehoods ;  have  caricatured  them  into 
forms  so  monstrous  and  inconceivable  as  to  shock  reason 
able  thinkers,  to  revolt  them  against  the  whole,  and  drive 
them  rashly  to  pronounce  its  founder  an  impostor." 

If  the  statements  respecting  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  made 
in  the  letter  to  Dr.  Rush,  are  correct,  the  charges  found  in 
the  letter  to  Mr.  Pickering  cannot  be  sustained.  If  we 
have  only  mutilated,  misstated,  and  unintelligible  fragments 
of  what  Jesus  delivered,  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for 
"  us"  to  know  what  are  the  doctrines  really  taught  by  the 
Son  of  Mary,  and  consequently  impossible  to  determine 
whether  they  have  or  have  not  been  •"  distorted  and  de 
formed."  It  is  evident  that  Jefferson's  antipathy  to  "  re 
ligion-builders  "  induced  him  to  make  absurd  and  contra- 


XOTES    OX 


dictory  allegations  against  them,  and  the  foundations  of  their 
faith.  Equally  absurd,  and  more  ridiculous,  when  con 
trasted  with  the  citations  from  the  Rush  letter,  is  a  certain 
declaration  of  Jefferson  concerning  his  own  religious  views. 
It  runs  thus:  "It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  I  am  with 
Christ  in  all  his  doctrines.  I  am  a  materialist.  He  takes 
the  side  of  spiritualism."  The  self-esteem  here  apparent, 
it  may  be  remarked,  is  quite  Jeffersonian. 

In  a  letter  to  his  nephew,  Peter  Carr,  dated  August  10th, 
1787,  Jefferson  thus  instructs  his  young  relative:  "Your 
own  reason  is  the  only  oracle  given  you  by  Heaven,  and 
you  are  answerable,  not  for  the  rightness,  but  uprightness 
of  its  decision.  Read  the  Bible,  then,  as  you  would  Livy 
or  Tacitus.  .  .  .  The  New  Testament  is  a  history  of  a  per 
sonage  called  Jesus.  Keep  in  your  eye  the  opposite  pre 
tensions,  (1)  of  those  who  say  he  was  begotten  by  God,  born 
of  a  virgin,  suspended  and  reversed  the  laws  of  nature  at 
will,  and  ascended  bodily  to  Heaven;  and,  (2)  of  those 
who  say  he  was  a  man  of  illegitimate  birth,  of  a  benevo 
lent  heart,  and  enthusiastic  mind,  who  set  out  without  pre 
tensions  to  divinity,  ended  in  believing  them,  and  was 
punished  capitally  for  sedition.  .  .  .  Question  with  boldness 
even  the  existence  of  a  God ;  because,  if  there  be  one,  he 
must  more  approve  of  the  homage  of  reason  than  that  of 
blindfolded  fear.  Do  not  be  frightened  from  this  inquiry 
by  any  fear  of  consequences.  If  it  ends  in  the  belief  that 
there  is  no  God,  you  will  find  incitements  to  virtue  in  the 
comfort  and  pleasantness  you  feel  in  its  exercise,  and  in  the 
love  of  others  which  it  will  procure  you.  If  you  find 
reason  to  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  a  consciousness  that 
you  are  acting  under  his  eye,  and  that  he  approves  you,  will 
be  a  vast  additional  incitement." 

From  contempt  for  the  oracles  of  Christianity  and  their 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  33 

authors,  to  the  abuse  of  its  divine  founder  the  transition  is 
easy.  It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  to  find  Jefferson,  in  a 
letter  to  Dr.  Rush,  charging  the  Saviour  with  "  evasions, 
sophisms,  misconstructions,  and  misapplications  of  scraps 
of  the  prophets."  In  keeping  with  this,  is  his  reply  to  his 
Italian  friend  (Mazzei),  who  called  his  attention  to  the  dilapi 
dated  condition  of  a  church  in  Virginia.  "  It  is  good 
enough,"  observed  Jefferson,  "  for  one  who  was  born  in  a 
manger." 

He  believed  the  prevalent  forms  of  the  Christian  religion 
to  be  dangerous  to  the  Republic.  On  November  2d,  1822, 
he  wrote  to  Dr.  Cooper :  "  The  atmosphere  of  our  country 
is  unquestionably  charged  with  a  threatening  cloud  of  fan 
aticism, — lighter  in  some  places,  denser  in  others,  but  too 
heavy  in  all."  His  friend,  General  Dearborn,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  whom  he  appointed  Secretary  of  War,  declared 
that  so  long  as  our  Christian  temples  stood  "  we  could  not 
hope  for  good  order  or  good  government." 

Jefferson  traduced  ministers  and  members  of  Christian 
churches.  Writing  to  the  Dr.  Cooper  above  mentioned,  he 
thus  ridicules  some  pious  women  of  his  own  State  :  "  In  our 
Richmond  there  is  much  fanaticism,  but  chiefly  among  the 
women.  They  have  their  night  meetings  and  praying  par 
ties,  where,  attended  by  their  priests,  and  sometimes  by  a 
henpecked  husband,  they  pour  forth  the  effusions  of  their 
love  to  Jesus,  in  terms  as  amatory  and  carnal  as  their  mod 
esty  would  permit  them  to  use  to  a  mere  earthly  lover." 
But  his  hottest  indignation  is  reserved  for  the  ministers. 
His  wrath  against  these  "  impious  dogmatists,"  these  ''false 
shepherds,"  these  "  mere  usurpers  of  the  Christian  name," 
transports  him  beyond  the  bounds  of  reason  and  decorum. 
"  My  opinion  is,"  he  writes,  "  that  there  would  never  have 
been  an  infidel  if  there  had  never  been  a  priest."  He  fairly 


34  NOTES    ON 

raves  at  the  "  Parishes,  the  Ogdens,"  and  other  clergymen 
of  New  England,  whom  he  styles  "  Marats,  Dantons,  and 
Robespieres."  Finally,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Rush,  he  includes 
all  clergymen  in  one  sweeping  denunciation,  by  declaring 
that  "  the  riddle  of  all  priesthoods  is  solved  in  four  words 
—  Ubi  panis,  ibi  Deus.' '  When  it  is  remembered  that  in 
the  Christian  ministry,  from  the  date  of  its  institution  to 
the  time  of  Jefferson,  there  were  always  men  of  great  in 
tellect,  sound  reason,  disinterested  benevolence,  and  unsul 
lied  character,  wholly  devoted  to  the  service  of  their 
Heavenly  King,  and  the  benefaction  of  their  fellow-men, 
and  that  Jefferson  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  this 
thing,  his  declaration  just  above  quoted  must  be  pronounced 
not  only  untrue,  but  wilfully  malicious.  Here,  as  in  his 
attitude  towards  Saint  Paul,  he  stands  alone.  Not  even 
the  "grinning  skeleton  "  of  France,  in  his  fiercest  onslaughts 
upon  the  founder  of  Christianity,  ventured  to  stigmatize  as 
mercenary  hypocrites  the  pure  and  holy  men,  who  have 
sacrificed  at  her'altars. 

In  further  illustration  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  religious  opin 
ions,  it  may  be  stated  that  in  founding  the  University  of 
Virginia,  of  which  he  claimed  to  be  the  "father,"  no  pro 
vision  was  made  for  a  school,  or  even  a  professorship  of 
divinity  ;  that  he  classed  the  various  forms  of  Christian  be 
lief  under  the  one  head  of  "fanaticism;'7  that  he  charac 
terized  them  all,  Quakerism  and  Unitarianism  excepted,  as 
"dreams  of  the  night;"  that  he  attempted  to  maintain  that 
Christianity  was  not  a  part  of  the  Common  Law  of  Eng 
land,  in  the  face  of  a  line  of  judicial  decisions,  unbroken, 
we  believe,  down  to  the  time  at  which  he  wrote,  and  in 
opposition  to  Lord  Keeper  Finch,  Wingate,  Shepherd, 
author  of  the  Touchstone,  Lord  Hale,  Wood,  Blackstone, 
Lord  Mansfield,  and  other  eminent  jurists. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  35 

Was  Jefferson  an  atheist?  In  order  to  show  his  belief  in 
a  Supreme  Being,  his  best  biographer,  Mr.  Randall,  quotes 
from  his  inaugural  addresses  and  his  messages,  certain  phrases 
wherein  he  invokes  the  Deity.    But  these  were  public  docu 
ments,  and  it  need  not  be  said  to  those,  who  have  impar 
tially  studied  the  life  and  character  of  Jefferson,  that  his 
public  utterances  are  by  no  means  conclusive  evidence  of 
his  real  opinions.     If  the   maxim  "  noscitur  a  sociia"  be 
applied  to  him,   it  raises  a   presumption  of  his  atheism. 
Freneau,  his    protege,  eulogist,   and   champion  flouted   a 
belief  in  Providence.     His  cherished  friend,  General  Dear 
born,  as  stated  above,  desired  the  demolition  of  the  temples  of 
God.     His  French  friend,  Cabanis,  taught  that  "the  moral 
affections  and   intellectual  faculties  reside  in  the  nerves ;" 
that  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  physical  and  the 
moral  nature,  for  "the  moral   faculties  have  their  origin  in 
the  physical."     In  other  words,  man  is  like  the  beasts  that 
perish  ;  when   the  physical   body  dies  all  is  dead — there  is 
no   immortality — no  future.     Condorcet,  another  and  more 
intimate  French  friend,  declared  that  "to  deny  God  is  the 
sublime  of  philosophy"     Jefferson's    writings   strengthens 
the  presumption   raised   by  his  associates.     In  his  notes  on 
Virginia,  he  says  "  It  does  me  no  harm  for  my  neighbor 
to  say  there  are  twenty  Gods  or  no  God ;  it  does  not  break 
rny  bones.'7     In  one  of  the  passages  cited  from  his  letter  to 
his  nephew,  he  intimates  that  a   belief  in  God  is  of  little 
importance,  since  they  who   do  not  believe  will  find  other 
incentives  to  virtue.     And   the  passage,  "  Question   with 
hold  ness  even  the  existence  of  a  God,  because  if  there  be 
one,"  etc.,  may  be  fairly  interpreted   to  imply  a  doubt,  if 
not  a  disbelief  in  such  existence.     He  has  not,  we  think, 
left  on  record  any  clear  expression  of  his  trust  in  an  over 
ruling  Providence.     His  flippant  use  of  such   phrases  as 


36  NOTES    ON 

"by  the  God  that  made  me"  will  scarcely  be  adduced  as 
evidence  of  his  faith  in  a  personal  Deity.  During  his  last 
hours,  he  declined  all  religious  converse,  and  gave  no  sign 
of  a  belief  in  a  future  state.  Mr.  Parton,  iu  his  labored 
eulogy,  facetiously  styled  a  life  of  Jefferson,  says  "  his  re 
ligion  was  the  supreme  decency,  the  highest  etiquette,  with 
the  addition  of  bell-ringing  and  merry  Christmas.'7  If  this 
description  of  his  religion  by  one  of  his  warmest  admirers 
be  correct,  Jefferson  was  certainly  an  atheist. 

Let  us  now  turn  for  a  moment  from  this  melange  of 
conceit,  malevolence,  and  blasphemy  to  the  life  and  writings 
of  Benjamin  Franklin,  a  skeptic  indeed,  but  one  whose 
skepticism  we  can  respect,  if  not  approve.  He  accords  to 
Christianity  the  deference  due  to  a  religion  that  has  claims 
to  a  superhuman  origin,  that  numbers  among  its  votaries 
many  of  the  wisest  and  best  of  our  fellow-creatures,  that, 
having  for  eighteen  hundred  years  withstood  the  assaults  of 
its  enemies,  is  now  enshrined  in  the  hearts  of  millions.  In 
November  1764,  when  about  to  depart  for  Europe,  he 
wrote  to  his  daughter,  "  Go  constantly  to  church,  no  matter 
who  preaches;  I  wish  you  would  never  miss  the  prayer- 
days."  He  advised  Paine  to  burn  the  Age  of  Reason, 
before  it  was  seen  by  any  one  else; — "  not  to  unchain  the 
tiger."  "  If,"  added  he,  "  men  are  so  wicked  with  religion, 
what  would  they  be  without  it?"  He  publicly  announced 
the  belief  that  "God  governs  in  the  affairs  of  men."  He 
proposed  prayer  in  the  Constitutional  Convention.  Though 
he  denied  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  he  obeyed  his  precepts.  He 
neither  derided  nor  denounced  professing  Christians,  lay  or 
clerical.  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to  apply 
to  Saint  Paul  the  epithets  "  dupe  and  robber,"  or  to  charge 
all  ministers  of  religion  with  insincerity.  He  endeavored  to 
live  and  die  as  Christians  pray  that  they  may  live  and  die, 


THOMAS    .JKFFEKSOX.  37 

"**'  in  perfect  charity  with  all  men."  What  a  contrast  is  here 
between  the  real  philosopher,  Benjamin  Franklin,  and  the 
pseudo  sage  of  Monticello  ! 

Mr.  Randall  informs  us  that  Jefferson  contributed  to  the 
support  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  regularly  at 
tended  the  same,  made  the  responses  in  the  services,  and 
was  married  and  buried  by  its  forms.  Mr.  Randall,  no 
doubt,  wishes  his  readers  to  infer  from  these  facts  that  Jeffer 
son's  infidelity  was  not  very  pronounced ;  that  he  had  not 
the  strong  aversion  to  religion,  that  his  enemies  imputed  to 
him.  And  such  inferences  are  indeed  warranted  by  these 
facts,  standing  alone;  but  their  importance  can  only  be  de 
termined  by  considering  them  in  the  light  of  Mr.  Jefferson's 
declarations,  and  of  all  his  other  acts.  He  must  have  de 
spised  the  clergymen  who  officiated  at  the  church  which  he 
attended,  since  all  clergymen  were  included  in  his  general 
denunciation  of  them.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  he  respected 
one  of  those  religions  that  he  asserted  to  be  fanaticisms.  It 
is  most  improbable  that  he  cherished  friendly  feelings  for 
the  Episcopal,  as  distinguished  from  other  Christian  churches, 
for  he  had  been  her  most  active  opponent  in  the  contest 
which  resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  her  supremacy  and  the 
loss  of  her  property  in  Virginia.  It  is  then  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  his  subsequent  attendance  at  her  service  was 
prompted  by  other  than  religious  motives.  He  was  prob 
ably,  somewhat  influenced  in  this  action  by  the  wishes  of 
his  family,  by  the  "supreme  decency"  mentioned  by  Mr. 
Parton,  and  by  a  desire  to  avoid  offending  the  prejudices  of 
his  neighbors.  But  there  must  have  been  an  incentive 
stronger  than  any  of  these,  to  induce  him  not  only  to  endure, 
but  to  aid  that  for  which  he  had  expressed  emphatic  con 
tempt,  and  that  incentive  may  be  found  in  his  political 
opinions  and  career.  Mr.  Jefferson  was  a  Democrat;  he  pro- 


38  NOTES    OX 

fessed  strong  confidence  in  the  purity  and  wisdom  of  the 
masses  of  the  people.  He  knew  full  well  that  a  great  ma 
jority  of  tljem  favored  the  Christian  religion,  and  in  order  to 
win  and  retain  their  support,  which  was  essential  to  secure 
the  triumph  of  himself  and  his  party,  he  must  exhibit  some 
regard  for  Christian  churches  and  their  ordinances.  He 
therefore  not  only  abstained  from  any  overt  attack  upon  re 
ligion,  but  attended  the  Episcopal  Church  and  contributed 
to  its  maintenance. 

It  may  have  been  not  his  religious  convictions  or  the 
voice  of  conscience,  but  the  voice  of  the  people,  regarded 
by  Jefferson  as  the  voice  of  God,  that  summoned  him  to 
the  temples  of  the  Most  High.  If  he  attended  church 
services  in  early  life,  it  was  possibly  because  others  did  so, 
or  because  he  hoped  to  promote  thereby  his  own  advance 
ment.  His  attendance,  in  later  years,  may  have  resulted 
from  habit,  from  a  desire  to  disprove  the  allegations  of  his 
enemies  as  to  his  infidelity,  or  above  all,  from  a  wish 
to  perpetuate  the  ascendancy  of  his  party  and  of  his  party 
associates.  While  manifesting  this  outward  deference  to 
religion,  he  was  writing  to  his  friends  private  letters,  filled 
with  "hatred,  malice  and  all  uncharitableness"  towards 
Christians  and  the  prevalent  forms  of  Christian  faith.  His 
course  in  this  matter  brings  out  in  strong  relief  his  dupli 
city,  the  great  blemish  in  his  character.  In  a  number  of 
his  letters  derogatory  to  Christians,  are  found  injunctions  of 
secrecy.  Thus,  while  charging  clergymen  with  imposture, 
he  was  himself  something  very  like  an  impostor.  While 
branding  others  as  fanatics,  he  was  himself  a  bigot.  This 
review  of  Jefferson's  opinions  and  treatment  of  religious 
subjects,  may  be  fitly  concluded  by  citing  his  revolting  allu 
sion  to  Heaven,  penned  at  Paris,  September  30th,  1785,  and 
found  in  his  works,  vol.  1,  page  327.  It  is  as  follows  : 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  39 

"  Voltaire's  description  of  France  is  a  true  picture  of  that 
country,  to  which  they  say  we  shall  pass  hereafter,  and 
where  we  are  to  see  God  and  his  angels  in  splendor,  and 
crowds  of  the  damned  trampled  under  their  fed" 


40  NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    PURCHASE    OF    LOUISIANA. 

MR.  JEFFERSON  has  been  lauded  for  the  acquisition  of 
Louisiana.     The  purchase  of  that  territory   has  certainly 
been  most  advantageous  to  the  United  States,  but  it  may  be 
doubted   whether   Jefferson  deserves   much  commendation 
for   the   part   he  took   in  the  transaction.      It  is  true  he 
favored  and  aided  the  acquisition,  but  he  believed  it  to  be 
unconstitutional.     This  fact  is  established  beyond  all  ques 
tion  by  his  letters  to  Mr.  Madison,  to  Levi  Lincoln,  to  W. 
C.   Nicholas,  and   to   Mr.  Brecken ridge,  in   regard  to  the 
newly-acquired  territory.      Writing  to  the  gentleman   last 
mentioned,   August   12th,   1803,  he  says:  "  The  Constitu 
tion   made  no  provision   for  our  holding  foreign  territory, 
still  less  for  incorporating  foreign  territory  into  our  Union. 
The  Executive  in  seizing  the  fugitive  occurrence,  which  so 
much  advances  the  good  of  their  country,  have  done  an  act 
beyond   the   Constitution."       This  is   sufficiently   explicit. 
Other  citations  would  be  superfluous.     Mr.  Nicholas  en 
deavored  to  convince  Jefferson  that  the  purchase  was  con 
stitutional,  but  he  refused  to  be  convinced,  and  insisted  that 
he  had  violated  the  Constitution.     He  justified  his  unlaw 
ful  action  by  adverting  to  the  great  benefits  likely  to  result 
from  it,  and  urged  members  of  Congress  to  vote  the  neces 
sary  appropriation  for  the  same  reason.     He  said  the  un 
constitutional  purchase  of  Louisiana  might  be  compared  to 
the  illegal  investment  of  his  ward's  money  by  a  guardian, 
when   such   investment    was    clearly    advantageous  to  the 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  41 

former.  When  the  ward  attained  his  majority,  the  guardian 
could  say  to  him  :  "  This  purchase  was  undoubtedly  illegal. 
You  have  a  right  to  repudiate  it  and  ruin  me,  but  I  was 
prompted  to  make  it  by  my  desire  to  benefit  you."  Jeffer 
son  was  confident  the  people  would  endorse  the  unauthor 
ized  acquisition,  by  voting  an  amendment  to  the  Constitu 
tion.  He  prepared  several  drafts  of  what  he  deemed  a 
suitable  .amendment,  and  submitted  them  to- some  of  his 
friends.  In  a  letter  to  Levi  Lincoln  he  writes  :  "  I  quote 
this  (the  amendment  proposed),  observing  that  the  less  that 
is  said  about  any  constitutional  difficulty  the  better,  and  that 
it  will  be  desirable  for  Congress  to  do  what  is  necessary  in 
silence."  He  appears  to  have  had  two  reasons  for  this  ex 
traordinary  injunction  of  silence  :  the  fear  that  his  opinion 
as  to  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  measure  might  induce 
some  members  of  Congress  to  vote  against  it,  and  the  fear 
that  France,  upon  learning  of  constitutional  difficulties, 
might  repudiate  the  contract.  In  his  message  to  Congress, 
announcing  the  purchase,  Jefferson  made  no  mention  of  an 
amendment  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  it  constitutional — 
no  such  amendment  was  ever  adopted,  or  proposed  by  Con 
gress,  or  by  State  legislatures.  One  can  imagine  an 
emergency,  in  which  the  Executive  might  be  warranted  in 
disregarding  some  provision  of  the  Constitution,  in  order  to 
save  the  State  ; — salus  populi,  suprema  lex.  But  Jefferson 
deliberately  did  what  he  admitted  to  be  an  unconstitutional 
act,  when  neither  the  existence  nor  the  safety  of  the  Com 
monwealth  was  menaced,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  acquir 
ing  territory.  He,  who  had  repeatedly  censured  Hamilton, 
Adams,  and  even  Washington  for  the  exercise  of  powers  the 
constitutionality  of  which  was  but  questionable,  was  guilty 
of  what  he  deemed  a  palpable  violation  of  the  supreme  law. 
His  seeming  non-appreciation  of  the  magnitude  of  his  offence 

4 


42  NOTES    OX 

is  more  surprising  than  the  offence  itself.  Mr.  Jefferson's 
infraction  of  the  Constitution,  and  his  failure  to  realize  the 
importance  of  the  act  will  aid  us  in  estimating  his  respect 
for  that  instrument,  as  well  as  for  laws  in  general.  His 
comparison  of  the  relations  existing  between  the  Federal 
authorities  and  the  people  to  those  of  a  guardian  and,, ward, 
throws  light  on  his  notion  of  the  functions  of  government, 
and  reveals  his  legal  acumen.  His  belief  that  the  acquisi 
tion  of  Louisiana  was  repugnant  to  the  Constitution, 
coupled  with  his  opinion  that  an  amendment  would  render 
it  constitutional,  illustrates  his  ability  to  interpret  that  great 
charter,  and  also  the  profundity  of  his  statesmanship.  His 
injunction  of  silence,  considered  with  reference  to  our  people 
and  to  France,  concerns  his  moral  character,  and  his  ready 
abandonment  of  the  amendment  idea  may  be  variously 
construed. 

It  will  never  be  known  how  seriously  Jefferson's  consti 
tutional  difficulties  imperilled  the  success  of  the  negotia 
tions  for  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  That  it  was  placed  in 
jeopardy  by  them  may  be  inferred  from  his  own  writings. 
In  the  letter  to  Mr.  Nicholas  he  says :  "  If  we  give  them 
(the  French)  the  least  opening  they  will  declare  the  treaty 
void."  In  other  letters,  his  fear  of  the  injurious  effects 
that  a  knowledge  of  his  views  of  the  Executive  power 
would  produce  in  France,  is  apparent.  He  assigns  this  as 
one  of  the  reasons  why  the  treaty  should  be  ratified,  and  the 
purchase-money  appropriated,  with  as  little  debate  and  as 
much  expedition  as  possible.  Desirous  as  France  was  of 
declaring  the  treaty  void,  would  she  not  have  done  so  had 
she,  before  its  ratification,  known  that  the  President  be 
lieved  the  Government  had  no  power  to  make  the  purchase? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it.  The  fact  that  the  power  was 
questioned  could  scarcely  be  kept  secret  for  any  great  length 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  43 

of  time,  in  a  country  governed  as  ours  then  was.  Indeed, 
Jefferson,  in  referring  to  a  remarkable  document  received 
from  France  by  the  State  Department,  seems  to  intimate 
that  she  had  an  inkling  of  the  constitutional  difficulty. 

If  she  had  any  suspicion  of  such  difficulty,  our  country 
was  brought  to  the  very  verge  of  a  serious  calamity  by  the 
President's  narrow  construction  of  the  Constitution.  Mr. 
Jefferson's  participation  in  the  Louisiana  purchase  may  be 
thus  summarized.  He  perceived  that  the  possession  of  the 
territory  would  prove  greatly  advantageous  to  the  United 
States,  but  he  was  firmly  convinced  that  its  acquisition  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  As  he  had  sworn  to 
"  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  "  that  instrument,  he  naturally 
hesitated.  Finding,  however,  that  the  popular  will  de 
manded  the  purchase,  and  that  some  of  his  friends  deemed 
the  transaction  constitutional/ he  concealed  his  personal  con 
victions  on  the  subject%from  the  public  and  from  France, 
urged  forward  the  negotiations,  and  gave  his  official  sanc 
tion  to  the  measure,  hoping  and  believing  that  it  could  and 
would  be  rendered  constitutional  by  an  amendment. 


44  NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SOME    TERGIVERSATIONS,    SELF-CONTRADICTIONS,    AND 
INCONSISTENCIES. 

1.  ON  March   15th,  1789,  Jefferson   wrote:  "I   know 
there  are  some  among  us  who  would  establish  a  monarchy, 
but  they  are  inconsiderable  in  number  and  weight  of  char 
acter.  .   .  .  The  rising  men  are  all  republicans.  .   .  .  An 
apostate  from  republicanism  to  royalism  is  impossible"    In 
1793,  he  entered  among  his  Ana  the  memorandum  that  we 
were  then  "galloping  into  a  monarchy."     On  April  24th, 
1796,  he  informed  Mr.  Mazzei  by  letter,  that  in   place   of 
the  "love  of  republican  government"  a  monarchical  party 
had  sprung  up  in  this  country;  that  the  party  was  receiv 
ing  numerous  and  important  accessions.     He  thus  alludes 
to  the  character  of  the  men  who  had  become  monarchists  : 
"  It  would  give  you  a  fever  were  I  name  to  you  the  apos 
tates  who  have  gone  over,  .  .  .  men  who  were  Samsons  in 
the  field,  and  Solomons  in  the  council."     He  concludes  by 
assuring  his  friend  Mazzei   that  "our  liberty  can  only  be 
preserved  by  unremitting  labors  and  perils/'     Up  to  the 
time  of  his  election  to  the  Presidency,  he  continued  to  ex 
press  strong  fears  lest  the  government  might  be   converted 
into  a  monarchy. 

2.  On  March  15th,  1789,  Jefferson,  commenting  on  the 
recently  ratified   Constitution,  writes :  "The    executive  in 
our  government  is  not  the  sole — it  is  scarcely  the  principal 
object  of  my  jealousy.     The  tyranny  of  the  legislature  is 
the  most  formidable   dread  of  this  time,  and  will  be  for 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  45 

V 

many  years.  That  of  the  executive  will  come,  but  it  will 
be  at  a  remote  period."  As  early,  however,  as  1793,  he 
began  to  express  alarm  at  the  great  and  increasing  power 
of  the  executive,  and  before  the  close  of  Washington's 
second  term,  he  concludes  that  t{ie  President  possessed  more 
power  than  the  legislature.  (See  letter  to  Madison,  June 
12th,  1796,  and  letter  to  Burr,  June  17th,  1797.)  At  first, 
he  attributed  the  preponderating  influence  of  the  President 
to  the  popularity  of  Washington,  but  subsequently  perceiv 
ing  that  this  influence  continued  after  Washington's  second 
term  had  expired,  he  became  apprehensive  that  the  execu 
tive  would  absorb  all  the  powers  of  the  government.  (Let 
ters  to  Gerry  and  others  in  1797.)  In  the  lapse  of  time, 
Jefferson  discovered  that  it  was  not  from  Congress,  or  from 
the  executive,  that  "  we  have  most  to  fear/'  but  that  the 
judiciary  was  the  arch  enemy  of  our  institutions.  On 
Christmas  day,  1820,  he  wrote  Thomas  Ritchie:  "  The 
judiciary  of  the  United  States  is  the  subtle  corps  of  sappers 
and  miners  constantly  working  underground  to  undermine 
the  foundations  of  our  confederate  fabric.  .  .  .  They  will 
lay  all  things  at  their  feet."  In  1789,  he  dreads  the  legis 
lature,  and  believes  the  executive  will  ultimately  be  dan 
gerous,  but  not  till  a  remote  period.  In  1797,  he  was 
alarmed  lest  the  executive  possess  himself  of  all  power; 
in  1820,  he  predicts  that  the  judiciary  will  "  lay  all  things 
at  their  feet."  His  fears  as  to  the  powers  of  the  three  great 
departments  of  the  government  have  proved  groundless, 
his  predictions  have  not  been  fulfilled,  and  his  calculations 
in  regard  to  them  only  reveal  the  shallowness  of  his  opin 
ions,  and  his  self-contradictions. 

3.  In  a  Cabinet  opinion,  he  asserted  that  the  incorpora 
tion  of  a  national  bank  "  sapped  the  foundations  of  the 
Constitution"  When  President,  in  1804,  he  signed  a  bill 


46  XOTES    ON 

establishing  a  branch  of  the  National  Bank  at  New  Orleans. 
In  1798,  in  the  famous  Kentucky  resolutions,  he  pro 
nounced  the  law  punishing  the  counterfeiting  of  national 
bank  notes,  "  void  and  of  no  force,"  because  repugnant  to 
the  Constitution.  In  1807,  he  signed  a  bill  to  punish  as 
capital  offences  certain  frauds  on  this  bank.  Albert  Gal  la 
tin  states  that  Jefferson  favored  a  recharter  of  the  bank, 
and  suggested  that  the  bill  for  that  purpose  might  become 
a  law,  through  the  detention  of  it  by  the  President  for  ten 
days.  In  fact,  Mr.  Gallatin  says  that  Jefferson,  looking  to 
a  renewal  of  the  charter,  requested  him  "  so  to  arrange  it 
that  it  might"  thus  become  a  law. 

4.  Writing  to  Mr.  Jay  in   1785,  Jefferson  advocates  a 
naval  force.     He  says  :  "  I  hope  our  land  office  will  rid  us 
of  our  debts,  and  that  our  first  attention  then  will  be  to 
the  beginning  of  a  naval  force.     This  alone  can  counte 
nance  our  people  as  carriers  on  the  water,  and  I  suppose 
them  to  be  determined  to  continue  such.0     He  also  advo 
cates  a  naval  armament,  for  the  punishment  of  outrages 
upon  our  citizens,  when  abroad.     Early  in  1797,  he  wrote 
Mr.  Gerry  a  letter  embodying  his  political  creed.     In  this, 
he  declares  himself  in  favor  of  "  such  a  naval  force  only  as 
may  protect  our  coasts  and  harbors  from  such  depredations 
as  we  have  experienced,"  and  not  of  a  "  navy  which,  by  its 
own  expenses  and  the  eternal  wars  in  which  it  will  impli 
cate  us,  will  grind  us  with  public  burdens  and  sink  us  under 
them." 

5.  In  1790,  he  assured  Mr.  Morris  that  aour  prospect 
(financial)  is  really  a  bright  one."     On  December  3d,  1790, 
he  informed  M.  DeMoustier  that  "our  experiment  is  going 
on  happily,  and  that  we  need  no  changes"     On  May  13th, 
1791,  he  communicated  to  a  friend  in  Europe  this  gratify 
ing  intelligence :  "  In  general,  our  affairs  are  proceeding  in 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  47 

a  train  of  unparalleled  prosperity,  ...  so  that  I  believe  I 
may  say  with  truth,  that  there  is  not  a  nation  under  the  sun 
enjoying  more  present  prosperity,  nor  ivith  more  in  prospect." 
These  three  letters,  from  which  the  above  extracts  are  taken, 
were  written  after  the  adoption  of  what  Jefferson  calls 
"  Hamilton's  financial  system."  Upon  turning  to  the  Ana 
we  find  the  following :  "  Hamilton's  financial  system  had 
two  objects:  1st,  as  a  puzzle,  to  exclude  popular  under 
standing  and  inquiry ;  2d,  as  a  machine  for  the  corruption 
of  the  legislature."  Jefferson  concludes  the  entry  by 
leaving  on  record  for  future  generations  the  monstrous 
statement,  scandalous  to  the  writer,  to  the  government,  and 
to  the  nation,  that  the  system  made  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  "master  of  every  vote  in  the  legislature,  which 
might  give  to  the  government  the  direction  suited  to  his 
political  views." 

6.  Jefferson  favored  the  funding  of  the  public  debt  "as 
a  measure  of  necessity,"  and  afterwards  denounced  it. 

7.  He  approved  Adams'  Defense  of  the  American  Con 
stitutions,  and  subsequently  condemned  it. 

8.  He    approved    the   Excise   Law,  in  a  letter  to   Mi- 
Morris,  written  in  1790,  and  a  few  years  after,  denounced 
it  as  unconstitutional,  and  pronounced  it  "  an  infernal  law." 
(Letter  to  Madison  in  1794.) 

9.  On  May  7th,  1783,  he  believes  "that  which  proposed 
the  conversion  of  State  into  Federal  debts  is  one  palatable 
ingredient  in  the  pill  we  are  to  swallow."     And  after  the 
United  States  had  assumed  the  State  debts,  he  writes  :  "  I 
believe  that  it — assumption — is  harped  upon  by  many,  to 
mark    their   disaffection     to    the    Government    on    other 
grounds."     But,  in  the  prefix   to  his  Ana,  he  states  that 
assumption   provided   "a   pabulum  for  the  stock-jobbing 
herd"  of  Hamilton. 


48  NOTES   OX 

10.  In  1787,  he  thinks  newspapers  without  a  government 
are  preferable  to  a  government  without  newspapers,  and 
while  in  the  Cabinet,  he  wrote  in  his  Ana  that  one  news 
paper  had  saved  the  Constitution. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Gerry,  dated  March  29th,  1801,  he  ex 
presses  another  opinion  of  them,  as  follows  :  "  If  they  (the 
public  papers)  could  have  continued  to  get  all  the  loave.s 
and  fishes,  that  is,  if  I  would  have  gone  over  to  them,  they 
would  continue  to  eulogize.  But  I  well  knew  that  the  mo 
ment  that  such  removals  should  take  place,  as  the  justice  of 
the  preceding  administration  ought  to  have  executed,  their 
hue  and  cry  would  be  set  up  and  they  would  take  their  old 
stand.  ...  A  coalition  of  sentiments  is  not  for  the  interest 
of  the  printers.  They,  like  the  clergy,  live  by  the  zeal 
they  can  kindle  and  the  schisms  they  can  create."  Janu 
ary  2d,  1814,  he  thus  expresses  himself:  "  I  deplore  with 
you  the  putrid  state  into  which  our  newspapers  have  passed^ 
and  the  malignity,  the  vulgarity,  and  mendacious  spirit  of 
those  who  write  for  them.  These  ordures  are  rapidly  de 
praving  the  public  taste  and  lessening  its  relish  for  sound 
food.  As  vehicles  of  information,  and  a  curb  to  our  func 
tionaries,  they  have  rendered  themselves  useless  by  forfeit 
ing  all  title  to  belief."  (Letter  to  Dr.  Walter  Jones.) 

11.  He  regretted  that  the  Constitution  permitted  the  re 
election  of  the  President,  and  hoped  it  would  be  altered  in 
this  respect,  yet  ivas  twice  elected  himself,  favored  and  pro 
moted  the  second  election  of  Madison  and  of  Monroe,  and 
suggested  a  second  election  to  Adams. 

12.  In  February,  1787,  he  advised  Lafayette  to  use  all 
his  efforts  to  have  the  new  French  Constitution  assimilated 
to  that  of  Great  Britain  as  nearly  as  possible.     To  John 
Adams,  he  wrote  that  the  "  English  Constitution  is  acknowl 
edged  to  be  better  than  all  which  have  preceded  it."     Yet, 


THOMAS   JEFFERSOX.  49 

in  a  certain  famous  letter  he  mentioned  England  as  a 
"  harlot; "  he  elsewhere  characterized  her  government  as 
"  the  most  unprincipled  at  this  day  known;"  he  spoke  in 
the  harshest  terms  of  those  who  favored  a  monarchy- 
styled  them  "  Anglo-men,"  "  Monocrats,"  and  frequently 
deplored  as  a  great  calamity,  the  very  thought  of  which 
"  oppressed  "  him,  any  tendency  of  this  country  towards 
that  form  of  government  which  he  warmly  recommended 
to  Lafayette. 

13.  Slavery. — In  1779,  Jefferson,  as  a  member  of  the 
committee  appointed  to  codify  the  laws  of  Virginia,  advised 
the  emancipation  of  all  slaves,  born  in  the  State  after  the 
passage  of  the  act  which  he  drew  up,  and  their  colonization 
at  a  proper  age. 

In  1781,  he  prepared  the  Notes  on  Virginia,  in  which  he 
clearly  and  powerfully  set  forth  the  evils  of  slavery,  both 
to  master  and  slave.  "  The  whole  commerce,"  he  writes, 
"  between  master  and  slave  is  a  perpetual  exercise  of  the 
most  boisterous  passions,  the  most  unremitting  despotism 
on  the  one  part,  and  degrading  submission  on  the  other." 
This  extract  will  show  the  spirit  in  which  he  treated  the 
subject.  Passing  to  a  consideration  of  the  consequences  of 
slavery,  he  indulges  in  the  most  gloomy  forebodings.  "  I 
tremble"  he  exclaims,  "/or  my  country,  when  I  reflect 
that  God  is  just,  that  his  justice  will  not  sleep  forever,  that 
considering  numbers,  nature,  and  natural  means  only,  a 
revolution  of  the  wheel  of  fortune  ...  is  among  possible 
events, — that  it  may  come  by  supernatural  influence.  The 
Almighty  has  no  attribute  which  can  take  sides  with  us  in 
such  a  contest."  The  writer  further  declares  that  he  can 
not  discuss  the  matter  with  composure. 

On  March  1st,  1784,  Jefferson  proposed  and  supported  in 
Congress  an  ordinance  excluding  slavery  from  all  the  national 


50  XOTES  ox 

territory,  lying  beyond  the  limits  of  the  States.     At  that 
time,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Madison,  Congress 
had  no  power  over  the  subject.     In  1785,  he  refused  to 
grant  General  Chastelleux  permission  to  publish  his  Notes 
on  Virginia,  unless  the  chapters  of  the  book  pertaining  to 
slavery  in   that  State   were  omitted.     When    the   Eastern 
States  and  Pennsylvania  were  preparing  and   passing  acts 
for  the  liberation  of  the  slaves  within  their  borders,  Jeffer 
son  wrote  private  letters  respecting  "  emancipation  and  ex 
patriation,"  but  made  no  attempt  to  set  on  foot  in  Virginia  a 
movement  to  accomplish  the  one  or  the  other.     Alarmed  by 
the  massacre  of  the  whites  in  Santo  Domingo,  he  cried  out  : 
"  If  something  is  not  done  (with  slavery)  we  shall  be  the 
murderers  of  our  children"     Notwithstanding  this  alarm 
ing  apprehension,  he  still  held  his  slaves,  and  did  nothing. 
Dreading  that  slavery  might  bring  about  the  slaughter  of 
his  own  and  his  friends'  children,  he  moved  not  a  finger  to 
avert  so  terrible  a  calamity.     Some  time  during  the  year 
1814,  he  wrote  to  a  young  Mr.  Cole  a  letter,  in  which  he 
suggested  that  young  men  should  not  abandon  their  slave 
property.     Mr.  Cole,   however,   emancipated   his   negroes, 
took  them  to  the  West,  and  there  provided  homes  for  them. 
In   February,   1817,  Jefferson   informed   Dr.   Humphreys 
that  he  was  "  in   favor  of  the  gradual  retirement  (of  the 
negroes),  and  their  establishment  elsewhere  in  freedom."  In 
1820,  and  1821,  while  the  question  of  admitting  Missouri 
into  the  Union   was  pending  before  Congress,   he  favored 
her  admission  as  a  slave  State,  and  opposed  restrictions  on 
slavery  in  the  territory  acquired  from  France.     Extracts 
from  some  letters  of  his,  written  about  this  time,  will  serve 
to  show  his  opinions  on  these  subjects.     In  a  letter  to  Gen 
eral  Breckenridge  in   1821,   he  objects   to  the  sending  of 
young  Southerners  to  Northern  colleges,  for  fear  of  their 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  51 

"  imbibing  opinions  and  principles  in  discord  with  those  of 
their  own  country"  A  letter,  written  in  the  same  year  to 
J.  C.  Cabell,  contains  the  following:  "  How  many  of  our 
youths  she  (Harvard  College)  now  has  learning  the  lessons 
of  anti-Missourianism,  I  know  not.  .  .  .  These  will  return 
home,  no  doubt,  deeply  impressed  with  the  sacred  princi 
ples  of  our  Holy  Alliance  of  Restrictionists  " — of  slavery. 
On  August  17th,  1821,  he  thus  writes  General  Dearborn  : 
"  Whether  the  question  (Missouri)  is  dead  or  only  sleepeth, 
I  know  not.  I  see  only  that  it  has  given  resurrection  to 
the  Hartford  Convention  men.  They  have  had  the  address, 
by  playing  on  the  honest  feelings  of  our  former  friends,  to 
seduce  them  from  their  former  kindred  spirits.  .  .  .  They 
have  adroitly  wriggled  into  power  under  the  auspices  of 
morality,  and  now  are  again  in  the  ascendancy,  from  which 
their  sins  had  hurled  them.'7  Mr.  Jefferson  could  not  believe 
that  Northern  men  were  disinterested  in  their  opposition  to 
slavery. 

In  his  memoir  of  his  own  life,  composed  in  1821,  he 
thus  expresses  himself:  "  Nothing  is  more  certainly  written 
in  the  book  of  fate,  than  that  these  people  are  to  be  free ; 
nor  is  it  less  certain  that  the  two  races,  equally  free,  cannot 
live  in  the  same  government.  Nature,  habit,  and  opinion 
have  drawn  indelible  lines  of  distinction  between  them.  It- 
is  still  in  our  power  to  direct  the  process  of  emancipation 
and  deportation  peacefully,  and  in  such  slow  degree,  as  that 
the  evil  will  wear  off  insensibly.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
left  to  force  itself  on,  human  nature  must  shudder  at  the 
prospect  held  up.  We  should  in  vain  look  for  an  example 
in  the  Spanish  deportation  or  deletion  of  the  Moors.  This 
precedent  would  fall  far  short  of  our  case." 

Writing  to  Mr.  Short  in  1823,  he  says:  "  We  feel  and 
deplore  it  (the  existence  of  slavery)  morally  and  politi- 


52 


NOTES   ON 


cally,"  etc.  Jefferson  clearly  perceived  the  evils,  moral 
and  political,  of  slavery,  and  vividly  portrayed  them,  but 
did  little  or  nothing  to  eradicate,  or  even  diminish  them. 
During  his  lifetime,  most  of  the  Xorthern  States  provided 
for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  and  hundreds  of 
southern  men  manumitted  their  negroes,  but  he,  for  forty- 
five  years,  kept  up  that  baleful  "  commerce  between  master 
and  slave,"  the  ill  effects  of  which  he  points  out  in  his 
Notes  on  Virginia.  Washington,  at  his  death,  set  free  all 
his  slaves,  and  enjoined  upon  his  executors,  to  provide  a 
"  regular  and  permanent  fund  "  for  those  unable  to  support 
themselves.  Jefferson  wrote  fine  sounding  phrases  about 
the  rights  of  man,  the  wrong  of  slavery,  and  its  direful 
consequences,  but,  while  he  lived,  never  loosed  the  bonds 
of  a  single  slave,  not  even  those  of  B unveil,  who  saved  his 
life,  and  was  otherwise  so  faithful.  In  making  his  will, 
too,  he  forgot  this  friend.  By  a  codicil  to  the  will,  he 
manumitted  Burwell  and  four  others.  Mr.  Jefferson,  no 
doubt,  originally  desired  the  abolition  of  slavery  through 
out  the  country;  but  the  labor  of  his  negroes  proved  profit 
able,  and  in  this,  as  in  other  matters,  his  better  impulses 
were  checked  by  his  lust  for  popularity,  combined  with  the 
obligations  of  party  fealty. 

14.  On    October   8th,  1787,  Jefferson    wrote  of   Louis 
XVI.:  "The  king  goes  for  nothing.     He  hunts  one-half 
the  day,  is  drunk  the  other  half,  and  signs  whatever  he  is 
bid."    On  April  6th,  1790,  he  states  that  this  same  king  is, 
"  A  prince,  the  model  of  royal  excellence.0 

15.  He  signed  the  Alien  Law,  and  the  Sedition  Law  as 
Vice- President,  and,  still   being  Vice-President,  prepared 

the  Resolutions  of  1798,  in   which   he  pronounced    those 
laws  not  laws,  but  absolutely  void. 

16.  In  December,  1787,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  Jef- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON. 


ferson,  the  champion  of  the  people,  and  the  advocate  of 
universal  equality,  expresses  a  doubt  whether  the  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  when  elected  by  the 
people,  would  be  as  well  qualified  for  their  duties  as  they 
would  be,  if  chosen  by  the  legislatures  of  the  States. 

17.  This  same  stickler  for  popular  equality  suggested 
that  one   house  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  —  he  preferred 
the  Senate  —  should  represent  the  wealth  of  the  State. 

18.  He   wished    all    kings    swept  from   the    earth,   but 
thought  most  of  the  nations  of  Europe   incapable  of  self- 
government. 

19.  The  characteristic  vacillation  of  Jefferson  is  illustrated 
by  his  varying  opinions  in  regard  to  the  Constitution.     To 
one  he  writes  :  There  are  very  good  articles  in  it,  and  very 
bad."     To  another  :  "  I  confess  there  are  things  in  it  which 
stagger  all    my  disposition  to   subscribe   to  what  such   an 
assembly  has  proposed."     In   1787,  he   thinks,  "All   the 
good  in  this  new  Constitution  might  have  been  couched  in 
three  or  four  new  articles,  to  be  added  to  the  good  old  and 
venerable  fabric,  u-hich  should  have  been  preserved"  (Letter 
to  Adams.) 

In  1789,  writing  to  Dr.  Humphreys,  he  extols  this  same 
new  Constitution,  as  the  "wisest  ever  presented  to  man." 
In  a  letter  to  A.  Donald,  he  thus  discourses  respecting  it: 
"  I  wish  with  all  my  soul  that  the  nine  first  Conventions 
may  accept  the  Constitution  ;  this  will  secure  to  us  the  good 
it  contains,  which,  I  think,  is  great  and  important.  But  I 
equally  wish  that  the  four  latest  Conventions,  whichever  they 
be,  nlay  refuse  to  execute  it,  till  a  Declaration  of  Rights  be 
annexed."  Upon  further  reflection,  he  favored  the  "  Mas 
sachusetts  plan  "  of  adopting  first,  and  amending  afterwards. 

•20.  Mr.  Jefferson's  remaining  in  the  Cabinet,  while  he 
opposed  many  of  the  prominent  measures  of  Washington's 


54  NOTES    ON 

administration,  and  even  seemed  anxious  to  embarrass  it, 
involves  a  question   not   only  of  consistency,  but  of  self- 
respect.     Alexander  Hamilton  admirably  discusses  the  duty 
of  a  Cabinet  officer  in  this  regard,  with   special  reference 
to  Jefferson's  conduct,  in  an  open  letter  signed  Metellus, 
from  which  we  take  the  following  paragraph  :  "  If  he  can 
not  coalesce  with  those  with  whom  he  is  associated,  as  far 
as  the   rules  of  official   decorum,  propriety,  and   obligation 
may  require,  without  abandoning  what  he  conceives  to  be 
the   interests  of  the   community,  let  him  not   cling  to  the 
honor  or  the  emolument  of  an  office,  whichever  it  be,  that 
attracts  him.     Let  him  renounce  a  situation  which  is  a  clog 
upon  his  patriotism,  and  tell  the  people  he  could  no  longer 
continue  in  it  without  forfeiting  his  duty  to  them ;  that  he 
has  quitted  it  to  serve  them.     Such  is  the  course  that  would 
be  pursued  by  a  man  attentive  to  unite  the  sense  of  delicacy 
with  the  sense  of  duty— in  earnest  about  the  pernicious  ten 
dency  of  public  measures,  and  more  solicitous  to  act  the 
disinterested  friend  of  the  people,  than  the  interested,  ambi 
tious,  and   intriguing   head   of   a    party."     Mr.   Jefferson, 
while  Secretary  of  State,  indirectly  encouraged,  if  he  did 
not  directly  instigate,  attacks  upon  Washington   and    upon 
his    administration.     Hamilton,  in    u    letter   signed   "An 
American/'  having  asked  whether  it  was  possible  that  the 
head  of  the  principal  department  of  the  government  could 
be  "the  patron  of  a  paper,  the  evident  object  of  which  was 
to  decry  the  government  and  its  measures/'  thus  proceeds: 
"  If  he  disapproves  of  the  government  itself,  and  thinks  it 
deserving  of  his  opposition,  can  he  reconcile  it  to  his  own 
personal  dignity  and  the  principles  of  probity,  to  hold  an 
office  under  it,  and  employ  the  means  of  official  influence  in 
that  opposition?     If  he  disapproves  of  the  leading  mea 
sures  adopted  in  the  course  of  his(?)  administration,  can  he 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  55 

reconcile  it  with  the  principles  of  propriety  and  delicacy  to 
hold  a  place  in  that  administration,  and  at  the  same  time, 
be  instrumental  in  vilifying  measures,  which  have  been 
adopted  by  both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  and  sanctioned 
by  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States."  These 
papers,  signed  respectively  "  An  American  "  and  "  Metel- 
lus,"  should  be  read  by  every  one  desirous  of  forming  a 
correct  estimate  of  Jefferson  and  Hamilton.  No  reply  to 
either  of  them  was  made  by  Jefferson. 

21.  Just  before  signing,  as  Secretary  of  State,  Washing 
ton's  proclamation  against  the  Western  rioters,  Jefferson 
complained  to  Madison  of  being  "  forced  to  appear  to 
approve  what  I  have  condemned  uniformly."  It  is  diffi 
cult  to  understand  the  mental  and  moral  nature  of  a  person 
who,  in  view  of  the  facts,  could  write  these  words.  One 
can  scarcely  imagine  how  a  brave  and  honorable  man,  in 
performing  the  duties  of  a  Cabinet  officer,  can  be  forced 
to  seem  to  approve  what  he  condemns. 


NOTES   OX 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

JEFFERSON'S  APPREHENSIONS  OF  MONARCHY. 

JEFFERSON  seems  to  have  been  haunted  by  the  perpetual 
fear  of  our  return  to  monarchy,  and  to  have  believed  that 
there  really  was  in  the  country  an  organized  party,  striving 
to  accomplish  that  result.  He  falls  into  despondency,  in 
contemplation  of  so  dire  a  calamity;  he  burns  with  indigna 
tion  against  those  who  would  bring  it  upon  the.people ;  is 
"almost  oppressed  with  the  apprehension  that  we  shall  be 
driven  back  to  the  land,  from  which  we  launched,  twenty 
years  ago."  He  brands  fabulous  friends  of  monarchial  in 
stitutions  as  "Monocrats;"  like  a  political  Don  Quixote, 
he  assails  imaginary  "apostates"  from  republican  principles, 
with  the  Mazzei  letter;  he  raves  about  the  "  energumenoi 
of  royalty,"  till  one  is  tempted  to  believe  that  he  himself  is 
a  demoniac.  The  two  persons,  whom  Jefferson  thought 
most  grievously  afflicted  with  this  monarchial  mania,  were 
John  Adams,  and  Alexander  Hamilton.  These  were  the 
leading  and  most  influential  plotters  against  the  liberties  of 
the  people.  Washington  was  their  dupe  and  instrument— 
the  lay  figure  upon  which  the  chief  conspirators  hung  "the 
rags  of  royalty,"  with  which  Jefferson  declared  he  was  en 
veloped.  But  the  arch-fiend,  the  Lucifer  of  the  revolt 
against  free  government,  was  Hamilton.  What  were  the 
reasons  for  all  this  solicitude  and  indignation  ?  There  were 
none.  The  only  pretext  for  them  was  that  Washington, 
Adams,  Marshall,  Jay,  Hamilton  and  other  men  of  wis 
dom  believed  that  the  Federal  government  should  possess 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  57 

//more  power  than  Jefferson  thought  it  ought  to  have.     From 
/'this  difference  of  opinion,  Jefferson  inferred  their  desire  for 
the  restoration  of  monarchy.     When  he  mentioned  his  fears 
of  royalty  to  Washington,  the   General   ridiculed  the  idea, 
and  said  that  in  his  opinion  there  "were  not  ten  men  in  the 
United    States,  who    entertained    such    a    thought/'      On 
another  occasion  Washington,  incensed  at  the  press  insinua 
tions  that  he,  favored  a  monarchy,  vehemently  declared  that 
he  regretted  having  accepted  the  presidency  a  second  time — 
that  he  would  rather  be  on  his  farm  than  to  be  made  emperor 
of  the  world,  and  yet  they  were  charging  him  with  wanting 
to  be  a  king.    (The  Ana,  August  2d,  1793).    Jefferson,  in  a 
letter  to  Mr.   Van  Buren,  admits   that   Hamilton  said   the 
idea  of  a  monarchy  was   visionary,  and  in   a  conversation 
with  the  same  gentleman,  expressed  his  belief  in  Hamilton's 
"frankness   in   regard  to  public   matters."     In   a   private 
letter  written  in  May,  1792,  to  his  friend  Colonel  Carring- 
ton,  to  whom  he  would  most  certainly  state  his  real  opinions, 
Hamilton  says    "I  am  firmly  attached  to  the  republican 
theory,"  and  stigmatized  "any  attempt  to  subvert  the  sys 
tem  of  the  country,  as  both  criminal  and  visionary."     That 
Hamilton  was  not  amenable  to  the  charge  of  endeavoring 
to  overthrow  our  form  of  government,  seems  clear  enough. 
Jefferson's    theory  of  a    royalist    party  was    dealt  a   most 
damaging  blow  by  John  Adams.     On  July  17th,  1791,  he 
wrote  to  the  Massachusetts  statesman  a  letter,  in  which  he 
remarked  that  their  difference  as  to  the  best  form  of  govern 
ment   was  well  known  to  both  of  them  ;  Adams,  on  July 
29th,  replied  that  he  had  never  had  a  serious  conversation 
with  Jefferson  on  the  subject,  and  that  any  allusions  to  it 
or  mention  of  it  between  them  had  always  been  made  in  a 
jocular  or  imperfect  manner.     "If  you  suppose,"  he  con 
tinues,  "that  I  ever  had  a  design  or  a  desire  of  attempting 

5 


58  NOTES    ON 

to  introduce  a  government  of  Kings,  Lords  and  Commons; 
or  in  other  words,  an  hereditary  executive  or  an  hereditary 
senate  either,  into  the  government  of  the  United  States, 

or  of  any  individual  state,  you  are  wholly  mistaken 

I  beg  you,  if  you  have  ever  put  such  a  construction  upon 
anything  said  by  me,  that  you  will  mention  it,  and  I  will  un 
dertake  to  convince  you  that  it  has  no  such  meaning."  To 
this  direct  denial  and  call  for  evidence  there  was  no  reply. 
It  thus  appears,  that  the  three  persons  whom  Jefferson  most 
strongly  charged  with  endeavoring  to  subvert  the  republic, 
disavowed  any  design  or  desire  to  restore  a  monarchy. 
Their  reputation  should  render  their  disavowal  conclusive. 
But  the  theory  that  these  men  or  their  associates  purposed 
a  return  to  monarchial  institutions,  is  inherently  most  im 
probable  ;  men,  by  whose  efforts  and  abilities  the  colonies 
had  been  transformed  into  independent  states,  and  provided 
with  a  certain  form  of  free  government,  would  hardly  be  so 
unstable  as  to  attempt  or  wish  a  change  of  that  form,  before 
its  efficiency  had  been  fully  tested.  Had  there  been  any 
who  desired  to  re-establish  royalty,  they  must  have  had 
little  discernment  indeed,  not  to  perceive  that  the  popular 
love  of  freedom,  and  hatred  of  regal  power,  would  render 
abortive  all  schemes  for  effecting  such  re-establishment. 
No  proofs  of  the  existence  of  a  monarchial  party  were  offered. 
When  Adams  called  upon  Jefferson  for  evidence  that  the 
former  favored  the  introduction  of  hereditary  institutions, 
the  latter,  as  above  stated,  was  silent.  In  a  letter  to  Wash 
ington,  dated  August  18th,  1792,  Hamilton  replies  to  the 
allegation  that  there  is  a  royalist  party  in  the  country,  in 
this  effective  manner;  "  to  this  there  is  no  other  answer 
than  a  flat  denial,  except  this ;  that  the  project  from  its  ab 
surdity  defeats  itself.  The  idea  of  introducing  a  monarchy 
or  an  aristocracy  into  this  country,  by  employing  the  influ- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  59 

ence  of  a  government  continually  changing  hands,  towards 
it,  is  one  of  those  visionary  things  that  none  but  madmen 
could  meditate,  and  that  710  wise  man  will  believe.  If  it 
could  be  done  at  all,  which  is  utterly  incredible,  it  would 
require  a  long  series  of  time,  certainly  beyond  the  life  of 
any  individual,  to  effect  it.  Who  then  would  enter  into 
such  a  plot  ?  To  hope  that  the  people  may  be  cajoled  into 
giving  their  sanction  to  such  institutions,  is  still  more  chi 
merical.  A  people  so  enlightened  and  so  diversified  as  the 
people  of  this  country,  can  surely  never  be  brought  to  it, 
but  from  convulsions  and  disorders  in  consequence  of  threats 
of  popular  demagogues.  The  truth  unquestionably,  is  that 
the  only  path  to  the  subversion  of  the  republican  system  of 
the  country  is,  by  flattering  the  prejudices  of  the  people,  and 
exciting  their  jealousies  and  apprehensions,  to  throw  affairs 
into  confusion  and  bring  on  civil  war.  Tired  at  length  of 
anarchy,  they  may  take  shelter  in  the  arms  of  monarchy 

for  repose  and  security 

Those,  then,  who  resist  a  confirmation  of  public  order 
are  the  true  artificers  of  monarchy."  These  are  the  words 
of  a  statesman,  and,  therefore,  they  are  quite  different  from 
those  of  self-seeking  demagogues.  In  the  letter  to  Wash 
ington,  containing  the  allegation  that  Hamilton  answers  as 
above,  Jefferson  states  that  the  same  parties  who  then  de 
sired  a  monarchy,  endeavored  to  establish  one  in  the  Consti 
tutional  Convention.  Hamilton  shows  that  but  few  of 
those  who  sat  in  the  Convention  were,  at  the  time  Jefferson 
wrote,  potential  in  public  affairs,  and  declares  that  in  that 
body  every  one  agreed  that  the  British  form  of  government, 
though  possessing  much  merit,  was  out  of  the  question  in 
this  country.  As  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  Conven 
tion,  and  Jefferson  during  its  session  was  in  Europe,  it  is 
easv  to  determine  whose  statement  is  the  more  likely  to  be 


60  NOTES    OX 

correct.  Moreover,  Mr.  Madison,  also  a  member,  substan 
tially  sustains  Hamilton  in  regard  to  the  sentiments  of  the 
Convention. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  Jefferson's  apprehensions  of  a 
return  to  monarchy  were  groundless.  Some  believe  that 
they  were  entirely  feigned. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  61 


CHAPTER  IX. 

JEFFERSON  AND  THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE. 

MR.  JEFFERSON'S  admirers  are  never  weary  of  extolling 
him  for  composing  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The 
inscription  on  his  tomb,  prepared  by  himself,  informs  all 
the  world  that  he  regarded  that  document  as  one  of  the 
three  great  works  of  his  life,  one  of  his  title  deeds  to  fame. 
A  little  attention  to  the  history  of  the  paper,  and  to  its 
contents,  may  dissipate  some  of  the  prevalent  illusions  re 
specting  its  authorship,  and  its  intrinsic  merits. 

,  The  Declaration,  with  which  we  are  familiar,  whatever 
its  merits  or  defects,  is  by  no  means  the  same  that  was 
drafted  by  Jefferson.  Of  the  Declaration  prepared  by  him, 
Congress  struck  out  more  than  one-fourth,  and  made  nu 
merous  amendments  of  the  remainder.  It  is  very  probable 
that  much  more  would  have  been  discarded,  but  for  the 
efforts  of  John  Adams,  who  possessed  great  influence  in  the 
Congress,  and  who,  having  conceived  a  high  regard  for  the 
author,  generously  and  vigorously  defended  the  document. 
Jefferson,  long  afterwards,  described  Adams's  arguments  in 
its  behalf  as,  in  the  highest  degree,  powerful  and  convincing, 
characterizing  him  as  a  very  Colossus  in  the  protracted 
debate.  The  Declaration  contains  little  that  was  new,  ex 
cept  the  arrangement.  The  grievances  enumerated  in  it 
had  been  repeatedly  set  forth.  It  is  compiled,  with  some 
change  of  language,  mainly  from  four  documents,  issued  by 
the  first  Continental  Congress  in  1774,  to  wit:  A  Declara 
tion  of  Rights  ;  An  Address  to  the  People  of  Great  Britain ; 


62  NOTES    ON 

A  Memorial  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Colonies ;  and  A 
Petition  to  the  King  of  Great  Britain.  Its  opening  some 
what  resembles  the  beginning  of  the  Memorial  just  men 
tioned,  "  separation  "  being  substituted  for  "  opposition." 
The  short,  paragraphic  style,  so  effective  in  it,  is  borrowed 
from  the  Petition  to  the  King.  Some  of  the  most  telling 
passages  are  taken  from  the  Mecklenburg  Declaration  of 
Independence,  adopted  May  20th,  1775. 

A  few  examples  of  the  amendments  made  will  show  how 
much  they  were  needed.  "  Inherent  and  inalienable  rights," 
found  in  the  original,  was  changed  to  "certain  inalienable 
rights."  In  the  clause,  "  to  expunge  their  former  systems 
of  government,"  "alter"  is  substituted  for  "expunge." 
"A  history  of  unremitting  injuries"  was  amended  by  put 
ting  "  repeated  "  in  the  place  of  "  unremitting."  The  pas 
sage,  "He  has  suffered  the  administration  of  justice  totally 
to  cease  in  some  of  these  States,  refusing  his  assent  to  Jaws/' 
was  remodelled  so  as  to  read,  "  He  has  obstructed  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice  by  refusing  his  assent  to  laws." 
From  the  sentence,  "  He  has  kept  among  us  in  times  of 
peace  standing  armies  and  ships  of  war,"  the  last  four  words 
were  omitted,  there  being,  perhaps,  some  doubts  as  to  the 
ability  even  of  a  king  to  keep  among  us  ships  of  war.  In  the 
original  was  the  following  :  "To  prove  this,  let  facts  be  sub 
mitted  to  a  candid  world,  for  the  truth  of  which  we  pledge  a 
faith  yet  unsullied  by  falsehood."  From  this  sentence  was 
stricken  the  clause  after  "  world."  The  original  draft  con 
tained  such  verbiage  as  this:  "Future  ages  will  scarcely 
believe  that  the  hardiness  of  one  man  adventured,  within 
the  short  compass  of  twelve  years  only,  to  lay  a  foundation 
so  broad,  and  so  undisguised  for  tyranny  over  a  people  fos 
tered  and  fixed  in  principles  of  freedom ;"  and  such  fustian 
as  this :  "  We  (British  and  Americans)  might  have  been  a 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  63 

free  and  a  great  people  together,  but  a  communication  of 
grandeur  and  of  freedom,  it  seems,  is  below  their  dignity. 
Be  it  so,  since  they  will  have  it,  The  road  to  happiness 
and  to  glory  is  open  to  us  too."  The  following  reads  like 
the  production  of  a  sentimental  young  woman:  "These 
facts  have  given  the  last  stab  to  agonizing  affection,  and 
manly  spirit  bids  us  to  renounce  forever  these  unfeeling 
brethren.  We  must  endeavor  to  forget  our  former  love 
for  them." 

Some  of  the  grievances  complained  of  did  not  exist.  For 
example,  Parliament  had  passed  no  law  depriving  the  colo 
nists  of  trial  by  jury.  The  Declaration  asserts  that  the 
king  "has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  coasts,  burnt 
our  towns."  It  would  have  been  difficult  for  its  author  to 
verify  this  terrible  and  preposterous  accusation  against  his 
majesty.  Throughout  the  document,  the  Colonies  are  im 
properly  styled  States.  This  error  was,  in  several  places, 
corrected  by  the  Congress.  The  parts  taken  from  the  Meck 
lenburg  Declaration  are  the  reference  to  inherent  rights,  the 
clause  declaring  that  the  Colonies  "  are  and  of  right  ought 
to  be'7  independent  States,  those  clauses  pronouncing  their 
absolution  from  allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  and  the 
dissolution  of  all  political  connection  with  Great  Britain, 
and  the  concluding  pledge  of  lives,  fortunes,  and  sacred 
honors.  In  borrowing  from  the  Mecklenburg  paper,  the 
word  "  inalienable  "  before  "  rights  "  was  substituted  for 
"  undeniable."  The  latter  is  certainly  the  proper  word. 
There  are  no  such  things  as  inalienable  rights.  A  free  man 
can  alienate  some  of  his  rights,  or  all  of  them.  He,  who  is 
incapable  of  doing  this,  is  not  a  free  man. 

In  the  Declaration  as  it  now  stands,  the  last  paragraph  is 
the  best.  It  is  characterized  by  a  clear,  strong,  and  ani 
mated  diction,  that  stirs  the  blood,  and  has  won  for  it  de- 


64 


NOTES    ON 


served  admiration.  The  draft  of  the  paragraph,  as  reported 
by  the  committee,  is  as  follows :  "  We,  therefore,  the  Rep 
resentatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  General 
Congress  assembled,  do,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  good  people  of  these  States,  reject  and  renounce  all 
allegiance  and  subjection  to  the  kings  of  Great  Britain,  and 
all  others  who  may  hereafter  claim  by,  through,  or  under 
them ;  we  utterly  dissolve  all  political  connection  which 
may  heretofore  have  subsisted  between  us  and  the  people  or 
Parliament  of  Great  Britain  ;  and  finally,  we  do  assert  and 
declare  these  Colonies  to  be  free  and  independent  States ; 
and  that  as  free  and  independent  States  they  have  full 
power  to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract  alliances,  estab 
lish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  and  things  which 
independent  States  may  of  right  do.  And  for  the  support 
of  this  declaration,  we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our 
lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our  sacred  honor."  As  has  been 
stated,  the  final  sentence,  the  most  telling  part  of  this 
paragraph,  is  borrowed  from  another  paper. 

The  inferiority  of  the  original  paragraph  to  the  amended 
one,  is  manifest.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  the  former,  there 
is  no  invocation  of  Divine  Providence,  nor  is  there  such 
invocation  anywhere  in  the  Declaration  prepared  by  the 
committee.  The  absence  of  this  is  one  of  its  chief  defects. 
The  Declaration,  although  expurgated  and  amended  by  the 
Congress,  is  exaggerated  in  statement,  turgid  and  redundant 
in  style,  and  needlessly  long.  An  examination  of  the  first 
paragraph,  the  exclusive  work  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  reveals  the 
serious  defects  concealed  beneath  its  flowing  language.  The 
clause  immediately  following  the  opening  "  when,"  is  su 
perfluous,  since,  the  necessity  of  dissolving  the  bands  men 
tioned,  must  come  if  it  come  at  all,  in  the  course  of  human 
events.  The  paragraph  intimates,  that  the  ordinary  course 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  65 

of  affairs  brings  about  the  necessity  of  dissolution,  that  the 
advent  of  such  necessity  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  whereas, 
in  reality,  the  necessity  for  separation  rarely  if  ever  arises, 
though  the  separation  may  often  be  desirable  or  advanta 
geous.  It  is  assumed,  that  one  of  the  peoples  has  not  only 
the  sole  right,  but  the  ability  to  effect  the  dissolution, 
although  both  of  them  are  alike  interested  in  the  matter, 
and  the  one  attempting  a  forcible  separation  may,  and  often 
does  fail.  The  colonists  and  the  British  are  treated  as  two 
peoples,  while  in  fact,  they  were  then  the  same  people,  in 
the  sense  of  the  word  as  there  employed. 

Not  only  does  it  become  necessary  for  some  citizens  of  a 
nation,  who  are  styled  a  people,  to  effect  the  dissolution 
aforesaid,  whether  they  can  or  can  not,  but  it  becomes  ne 
cessary  for  them  to  assume  a  separate  and  equal  station 
among  the  powers  of  the  earth.  The  separation,  if  accom 
plished,  would  probably  give  them  a  separate  station,  but 
how  shall  a  feeble  people  take  an  equal  station  among  the 
strong  powers  of  the  earth  ?  Why  such  a  question?  The 
station  to  be  assumed,  is  that  "  equal  station,  (equal  to  what?) 
to  which  "  certain  laws  entitle  the  people.  Surely,  this  is 
clear  enough.  These  laws  are  of  two  kinds,  the  laws  of 
nature,  and  the  laws  of  nature's  God.  Many  persons  believe 
that  the  laws  of  nature,  and  those  of  nature's  God  are  the 
same,  but  one  author  seems  to  have  had  a  different  opinion. 
In  the  paragraph,  the  residents  of  the  Colonies  are  re 
ferred  to  as  "  one  people."  This  term  may  mean  a  race, 
as  for  instance,  the  Jewish  people.  Its  other  meaning  is  an 
organized  political  society,  a  nation.  It  is  evident  that  the 
author  employs  it  in  the  latter  sense,  for  he  sets  it  in  oppo 
sition  to  Great  Britain,  confessedly  a  nation.  A  nation 
possesses  independence  and  sovereignity.  Were  the  Colo 
nies  when  they  declared  their  independence,  already  inde- 


66 


XOTES    OX 


pendent?  They  were  not  so  then,  and  never  had  been. 
Their  inhabitants  were  at  the  time,  citizens  of  Great  Britain, 
subjects  of  the  British  king,  to  whom  they  had  repeatedly 
acknowledged  their  allegiance.  The  very  paper  in  which 
the  term  is  found  clearly  establishes  these  facts.  A  war  of 
seven  years  was  required  to  secure  for  them  independence 
and  sovereignty,  the  essential  attributes  of  a  nation.  What, 
then,  could  be  more  erroneous  than  to  style  them  a 
"people?" 

The  cause  assigned   for  drawing  up  the   Declaration   is 
worthy  of  notice.     There  were  excellent  reasons  for  prepar 
ing  and  publishing  such  a  paper.     It  would  present  in  one 
group,  and  in  a  formal  manner,  the  wrongs  inflicted  upon 
the  Colonies  by  the   Crown,  and   the  grievances  of  which 
they  complained,  so  that  the  people  might  clearly  compre 
hend  the  motives  which  urged  the  Congress  to  adopt  the 
momentous  resolution  of  severing  their  connection  with  the 
mother  country,  and   thereby  be   induced    to  sustain   the 
movement.     It  would  tend  to  produce  unity  of  thought, 
feeling  of  action.     It   would    inspirit    the  army,  confirm 
the  wavering,  encourage  the  timid,  arouse  the  indifferent. 
It  might  enable  the  Congress  to  borrow  money,  or  nego 
tiate  treaties,  which  could  not  be  done  without  such  declara 
tion.     It   might   bring  to  the   Colonies,  in   the  impending 
contest,  the  assistance  of  some  nation,  or  monarch  hostile 
to  England.     These,  and  similar  reasons  would  seem  to  be 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  preparation  of  the  Document. 
But  it  appears   from  the  paragraph,  that   members  of  the 
Congress  were  not  moved  in  this  matter  by  any  such  con 
siderations.    They  were  prompted  by  "  a  decent  respect  for 
the  opinions  of  mankind."     Is  it  possible  that  the  immortal 
Declaration  was  drafted,  discussed,  adopted  and  published 
for  that  reason  only  ?    Did  John  Adams  for  three  days,  de- 


THOMAS    JKKFERSOX.  67 

fend  it  against  the  assaults  of  its  enemies,  out  of  regard  for 
the  opinions  of  mankind?  Or  did  Mr.  Jefferson  merely 
ascribe  to  others  the  feeling  which  impelled  him  to  favor 
it?  This  clause,  and  his  desire  to  submit  "  facts  to  a  candid 
world/'  remind  one  of  an  incident  in  the  life  of  Anacharsis 
Clootz,  a  notorious  atheist  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Clootz,  though  a  German,  sat  in  the  National  Convention. 
When  some  one  demanded -of  him,  by  what  right,  he  a 
German,  occupied  a  seat  in  the  National  Convention  of 
France,  he  replied  that  he  was  a  Representative  of  the  human 
race.  Since  atheists  believe  there  is  no  Supreme  Ruler  of 
the  Universe,  they  can  appeal  to  nothing  wiser  or  higher 
than  the  human  race.  It  is  probable  that  Jefferson,  while 
resident  in  France,  acquired  from  them  the  habit,  observable 
in  his  writing,  of  invoking  the  judgment,  or  approval  of 
mankind.^ 

The  second  paragraph  is  also  the  work  of  Jefferson.  It 
opens  with  the  statement  of  several  propositions,  that  are 
declared  to  be  self-evident  truths.  It  is  doubtful,  whether 
a  single  one  of  them  embodies  a  self-evident  truth.  Two 
of  them  are  manifestly  untrue,  to  wit :  the  proposition 
"  that  all  men  are  created  equal,"  and  the  proposition  "that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inali 
enable  rights."  Who  does  not  know  that  at  birth, 
which  may  be  said  to  mark  the  end  of  creation,  men  are 
unequal,  socially,  physically  and  mentally  ?  They  differ 
in  health,  some  inheriting  disease,  and  others  being  corpor 
ally  sound ;  in  strength,  in  size,  in  rank,  in  possessions. 
They  are  even  morally  unlike,  some  being  tainted  with  a 
hereditary  tendency  to  vice  or  crime,  for  the  iniquity  of 
fathers  is  visited  upon  their  children.  Nor  do  men,  at  birth, 
possess  equal  rights.  Such  may  have  been  originally  the 
case,  under  the  law  of  nature,  but  that  law  has  been  so 


68  NOTES    ON 

modified,  in  its  operation,  by  municipal  and  other  laws,  re 
sulting  from  the  necessities  of  society,  that  the  rights  of 
men,  in  one  nation,  differ  from  those  rights,  in  another 
nation,  and,  even  in  the  same  country,  some  persons  have 
certain  rights  that  others  do  not  possess.  The  doctrine  of 
"  inalienable  "  rights  has  been  elsewhere  shown  to  be  un 
tenable. 

Mr.  Jefferson  seems  unfortunate  here  in  his  choice  of  lan 
guage  respecting  human  rights.  He  declares  that  men  are 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  rights;  he  names  as 
one  of  those  rights,  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The  logical 
deduction  is  that  the  Creator  has  endowed  men  with  the 
pursuit  of  happiness,  which  is  an  absurdity.  He  no  doubt 
meant  to  say  "  Among  these"  are  the  right  to  life,  the  right 
to  liberty,  and  the  right  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  That 
men  have  an  indefeasible  natural  right  to  life,  and  to 
liberty,  is  indisputable,  but  the  proposition  that  they  have 
such  a  right  to  pursue  their  own  happiness,  must  be  accepted 
with  some  qualification.  All  the  remaining  propositions, 
here  enunciated,,  have  been,  or  can  be  denied  or  questioned 
by  thoughtful  men,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  regarded  as 
self-evident  truths. 

Further  on,  the  author,  if  his  own  words  be  taken  in 
their  ordinary  signification,  intimates  that  some  unnamed 
person,  who  governs  the  whole  earth,  harbors  the  design  of 
reducing  mankind  "under  an  absolute  despotism,"  and  as 
sures  his  fellow  creatures  that  it  is  their  right  and  their  duty 
to  throw  off  the  government  of  this  universal  tyrant.  What 
a  spectacle  would  be  presented  by  the  human  race  strug 
gling  to  resist  an  impending  despotism  !  The  attention  of 
the  reader  is  next  arrested  by  this  remarkable  period,  which 
we  present  in  the  form  that  it  bore,  before  amendment : 
"  The  history  of  the  present  king  of  Great  Britain  is  a 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  69 

history  of  unremitting  injuries  and  usurpations,  among 
which  appears  no  solitary  fact  to  contradict  the  uniform 
tenor  of  the  rest,  but  all  have  in  direct  object,  the  establish 
ment  of  an  absolute  tyranny  over  these  states."  Here  are 
two  very  awkwardly  expressed  allegations;  first,  that  the 
king,  since  his  accession,  has  been  continually  engaged  in 
the  work  of  injury  and  usurpation  ;  second,  that  the  sole 
purpose  of  this  unremitting  work  has  been,  and  is  to 
establish  a  tyranny  over  his  American  Colonies.  In  other 
words,  the  monarch  of  a  powerful  and  populous  kingdom 
has,  for  sixteen  years,  been  devoting  his  time  and  attention 
exclusively  to  the  task  of  imposing  a  tyranny  upon  some 
thousands  of  his  loyal  subjects,  dwelling  in  another  hemi 
sphere. 

The  paragraph  closes  with  the  rash  offer  to  prove  this 
extravagant  statement,  to  the  world.  It  is  fair  to  say  that 
the  first  and  second  paragraphs  are  more  objectionable  than 
the  others.  Indeed,  the  document  as  a  whole  is  by  no 
means  devoid  of  merit.  The  arrangement  is  proper,  the 
language  generally  good,  the  style  flowing,  sometimes 
strong,  occasionally  elevated.  The  wrongs  inflicted  upon  our 
fathers  by  the  British  Government  are  vigorously  set  forth. 
But  while  it  is  admitted  that  our  valued  Declaration  pos 
sesses  merit,  it  is  not  admitted  that  Jefferson  deserves  the 
high  praise  accorded  to  him  as  its  author.  On  the  con 
trary,  it  seems  clear  from  the  following  considerations,  that 
he  does  not  deserve  it :  1.  He  did  not  suggest  the  prepara 
tion  of  such  a  paper.  2.  He  did  little  to  secure  its  adoption. 
3.  He  is  not  the  sole  author  of  it.  It  is  true  that  most  of  it 
is  his  work ;  but  the  Congress,  by  omitting  a  great  deal 
of  his  original  draft,  and  making  many  alterations  in  the 
remainder,  did  much  to  impart  to  it  its  present  popular 
form.  4.  The  omissions  and  alterations  greatly  improved 


70  NOTES    OX 

the  original.  5.  The  Declaration,  though  bettered  by 
expurgation  and  amendments,  is  yet  far  from  being  a  mas 
terpiece.  We  have  seen  how  obnoxious  to  criticism  some 
portions  of  it  are.  6.  The  renown  which  the  written  Dec 
laration  has  brought  Jefferson  is  partly  attributable  to  the 
grandeur  of  the  deed  with  which  it  is  associated.  The  act 
of  declaring  the  Colonies  free  and  independent  was  an  act 
of  such  transcendent  importance  in  our  history,  that  it  ren 
dered  famous  even  the  man,  who  prepared  the  form  of 
words  in  which  it  was  done.  The  paper  styled  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence  is  not  venerated  by  us  on  account 
of  its  excellence  as  a  piece  of  composition,  but  because  it  is 
the  new  Magna  Charta  of  our  ancestral  liberties ;  because  it 
explains  and  vindicates  a  transaction  which  marked  the 
dawn  of  a  better,  a  glorious  era,  a  transaction,  without 
which,  the  independence,  the  prosperity,  and  the  power  of 
these  United  States  would  have  been  impossible;  because 
it  reminds  us  that  our  fathers  belonged  to  a  race  accustomed 
to  the  rights  of  freemen ;  that  they  regarded  them  as  of 
inestimable  value,  and  that  they  were  willing  to  risk  life 
and  fortune  in  order  to  transmit  those  rights,  as  a  precious 
heritage,  to  their  children.  7.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of 
a  century,  Jefferson  was  the  idol  of  a  majority  of  the  Ameri 
can  people.  The  multitude,  even  more  than  the  individual, 
is  disposed  to  overlook  the  faults,  and  magnify  the  merits 
of  its  favorite.  The  Declaration  is  the  best  of  his  literary 
works,  of  which  there  are  few ;  it  treats,  too,  of  something 
in  which  every  man  is  profoundly  interested.  It  is  not  at 
all  surprising,  then,  that  the  people  deemed  it  a  production 
of  extraordinary  excellence.  Demagogues,  courting  the 
favor  of  the  democratic  elements  in  society,  found  it  profit 
able  to  praise  Jefferson  and  his  works,  and,  of  course, 
lauded  the  Declaration  to  the  skies,  thus  perpetuating  and 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  71 

strengthening  the  erroneous  opinion  of  its  merits,  origi 
nally  formed.  This  was  the  more  easily  done,  because  all 
were  inclined  to  view  with  favor  whatever  was  written  by 
one  who  had  assisted  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  republic. 
To  the  popular  aifection  for  Jeiferson,  and  to  the  laudation  of 
him  by  demagogues,  some  of  them  gifted  with  great  ability, 
is  to  be  ascribed,  we  believe,  much  of  the  honor  that  has 
been  accorded  to  him,  as  author  of  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence. 


72  NOTES   ON 


CHAPTER  X. 

SOME   REMARKABLE    POLITICAL   THEORIES. 

1.  JEFFERSON  proposed  a  Commission,  to  consist  of  one 
Congressional  representative  from  each  State,  which  should 
have  the  same  powers  as  Congress,  and  sit   permanently, 
while  Congress  was  not  in  session.     One  such  Commission 
was  appointed,  but  it  soon  became  the  scene  of  such  bitter 
disputation,  as  to   render   further   consultation    on    public 
measures  impossible.    In  a  short  time,  it  ceased  to  assemble, 
its  powers  expired,  and   no  other  was  ever  appointed. — 
Morse's  Life  of  Hamilton. 

2.  In  1787,  after  an  experience  of  seven  years  had  con 
clusively  shown  that   the  Articles  of  Confederation   were 
totally  inadequate  to  the  indispensable  purposes  of  a  na 
tional  government,  after  every  State  had  recognized  this  in 
adequacy  by  appointing  delegates  to  a  Convention  for  orga 
nizing  a  new  Constitution,  and  when  the  Convention  was 
actually  in   session,  Jefferson  still  believed  that  the  Gov 
ernment   of  the  Confederation,  was  "  without  comparison 
the  best  existing,  or  that   ever  did  exist." — Letter  to  Mr. 
Carrington. 

3.  In  the  same  letter,  he  expresses  these  opinions:  that 
Congress  had  power  under  the  Confederation  to  enforce  con 
tributions  of  money  from  the  several  States ;  that  "  it  was 
not  necessary  to  give  Congress  that  power  expressly ;  they 
have  it  by  the  Jaw  of  nature,"  and  that  "  compulsion  was 
never  so  easy  as  in  our  (?)  this,  case.'7    It  is  well  known  that 
no  State  admitted  the  possession  by  Congress  of  the  power 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  M 

mentioned,  and  that  Congress  did  not  claim  such  power,  or 
attempt  to  exercise  it.  As  early  as  July,  1782,  the  Legis 
lature  of  New  York  unanimously  resolved,  "  That  ex 
perience  has  demonstrated  the  Confederation  to  be  defective 
in  several  essential  points,  particularly  in  not  vesting  the 
Federal  Government  with  the  power  of  providing  revenue 
for  itself."  In  April,  1783,  the  Congress  of  the  Confeder 
ation  passed  resolutions  recommending  to  the  several  States 
to  invest  the  Congress  with  certain  specified  powers  for 
raising  revenue,  to  restore  and  maintain  the  public  credit. 
In  February,  1786,  a  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  King, 
Pinckney,  Kean,  Monroe,  and  Petit  in  their  report  to 
Congress,  say,  that  "  It  most  clearly  appeared,  that  the 
requisitions  of  Congress  for  eight  years,  have  been  so  ir 
regular  in  their  operation,  so  uncertain  in  their  collection, 
and  so  evidently  unproductive,  that  a  reliance  on  them  in 
future,  as  a  source  from  whence  moneys  are  to  be  drawn  to 
discharge  the  engagements  of  the  Confederacy,  .  .  .  would 
be  not  less  dishonorable  to  the  understandings  of  those  who 
entertain  such  confidence;  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  the 
welfare  and  peace  of  the  Union/'  and  recommend  that  Con 
gress  should  represent  to  the  several  States  "  the  utter  im 
possibility  of  maintaining  and  preserving  the  faith  of  the 
Federal  government,  by  temporary  requisitions  on  the 
States.'7  The  Congress  agreed  to  this  report.  What  Con 
gress  deemed  it  utterly  impossible  to  do,  Jefferson  declared 
could  be  most  easily  performed.  His  opinion  that  Con 
gress  possessed  the  power  under  consideration,  is  hardly  so 
remarkable  as  his  declaration  that  the  power  results  from 
the  Law  of  Nature.  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  except  Mr.  Jefferson,  could  deduce 
such  a  power  from  that  law.  But  how  does  he  propose  to 
enforce  the  power.  "  A  single  frigate  would  soon  levy  on 

6 


74  XOTES    OX 

the  commerce  of  any  state  the  deficiency  of  its  contribu 
tions."  Nothing  could  be  more  simple,  or  more  summary. 
Yet  the  founders  of  the  Republic,  strangely  enough,  bore 
their  financial  troubles  for  eight  years,  without  resorting  to 
this  efficacious  method  of  terminating  them.  Congress 
again  and  again,  appealed  to  the  States,  and  to  their  citizens 
to  discharge  their  requisitions.  They  were  reminded  of 
their  "  plighted  faith  ;" — that  the  public  debt  had  been  con 
tracted  for  the  common  benefit.  They  were  assured  that 
ajustice,  honor,  and  gratitude"  demanded  the  payment  of 
their  quotas.  They  were  warned  that  the  cause  of  liberty, 
which  they  had  engaged  to  vindicate,  would  be  "  blotted" 
by  the  failure  of  the  Confederation  to  fulfil  its  engage 
ments.  Appeals,  reminders,  and  warnings  were  attended 
with  but  partial  success,  but  the  Representatives  in  Con 
gress,  dullards  that  they  were,  never  tried  the  effect  of  a 
u  single  frigate,"  operating  against  the  commerce  of  a  State. 
Had  they  done  this,  all  would  have  been  well. 

4.  He  entertained  curious  notions  respecting  the  re-eligi 
bility  of  the  president,  allowed  by  the  Constitution.  He 
wrote  the  "  President  will  be  a  bad  edition  of  a  Polish  king. 
He  may  be  elected  from  four  years  to  four  years,  for  life. 
Reason  and  experience  prove  to  us  that  a  chief  magistrate 
so  continuable,  is  an  office  for  life.  When  one  or  two 
generations  shall  have  proved  that  there  is  an  office  for  life, 
it  becomes,  on  every  succession,  worthy  of  intrigue,  of 
bribery,  force  and  even  of  foreign  interference.  It  will  be 
of  great  consequence  to  France  and  England,  to  have 
America  governed  by  a  Gallo-man,  or  an  Anglo-man.  Once 
in  office,  and  possessing  the  military  force  of  the  Union, 
without  the  aid  or  check  of  a  council,  he  would  not  be 
easily  dethroned,  even  if  the  people  could  be  induced  to 
withdraw  their  votes  from  him."  This  quotation  from  a 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  75 

letter,  written  to  John  Adams  in  November,  1787,  shows 
what  vagaries  may  emanate  from  the  brain  of  a  sage.  It 
is  apparent,  that  in  regard  to  the  matter  under  consideration, 
he  possessed  little  of  the  experience,  and  less  of  the  reason 
to  which  he  appeals  in  support  of  his  views.  Again,  allud 
ing  to  the  subject  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  De 
cember  20th,  1787,  he  states  his  fear  that  in  cases  of  close 
elections,  the  President  "  will  pretend  false  votes,  foul  play, 
and  hold  possession  of  the  reins  of  government,"  and  that, 
if  the  people  were  disposed  to  vote  him  out,  foreign  powers 
would  not  permit  it,  if  his  continuance  in  office  would  pro 
mote  their  interests. 

5.  He  styled  the  people  of  the  United  States  under  the 
Constitution,  "a  Society,"  and,  oddly  enough,  called  the 
suppression  of  the  Whiskey  Rebellion,  "  arming  one  portion 
of  the  society  against  another/'7 

6.  He  designated  Virginia  as  his  "country,"  and   the 
United  States  courts  as  "  foreign  jurisdictions,"  although  he 
was  at  the  time  Vice- President  of  the  United  States,  as  well 
as  a  citizen  of  Virginia. 

7.  In  1797,  Jefferson  wrote  to  Mr.  Monroe  a  letter,  in 
which  he  recommended  that  some  means  be  devised  to  pun 
ish  residents  of  Virginia  for  attempting  to  transfer  to  the 
Federal  courts,  suits  brought  by   or  against  them  in  the 
tribunals  of  that  State.    In  the  year  named,  Justice  Iredell 
of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  delivered  a  charge  to 
the  grand  jury,  in  the  United  States  court  at  Richmond, 
whereupon   the  jury  presented   certain   circular   letters  of 
several  members  of  Congress,  among  them,  that  of  Samuel 
J.  Cabell,  of  Virginia.    Jefferson  desired  to  punish,  through 
the  courts  of  the  State,  those  by  whose  agency  the  present 
ments  were  made.     Hence  his  letter  to  Monroe.     He  pro 
posed  that  the  Legislature  should  enact  a  law,  declaring 


76  NOTES    OX 

that  a  "  plea  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  State  court,  or  the  re 
clamation  of  a  foreign  jurisdiction,  if  adjudged  valid,  would 
be  safe,  but  if  adjudged  invalid,  should  be  followed  by  the 
punishment  of  prcemunire  for  the  attempt."  The  crime  of 
prcemunire,  under  the  English  law,  was  a  contempt  of  the 
king's  authority,  manifested  by  the  introduction,  or  the 
attempt  to  introduce,  a  foreign  authority  into  the  realm. 
The  law  of  prcemunire  was  enacted  to  check  Papal  aggres 
sions  in  Great  Britain,  and  the  punishment  of  one  convicted 
of  invoking  the  Pope's  protection  was  banishment,  the  for 
feiture  of  lands  and  goods,  loss  of  member,  or,  of  life  itself. 
In  order  to  protect  State  rights,  not  from  actual,  but  from 
apprehended  invasion,  Mr.  Jefferson  would  attack  the  great 
common-law  right  of  every  freeman,  to  question  the  au 
thority  of  the  tribunal,  that  assumes  to  try  him  or  his  cause. 
He  proposed  to  assail  this  precious  right  by  passing  an  un 
constitutional  law,  for  under  the  Federal  Constitution  the 
citizen  has,  in  many  cases,  the  privilege  of  removing  his 
cause  from  a  State  to  a  Federal  court.  It  is  true,  the  pro 
posed  law  did  not  forbid  him  to  apply  for  a  removal  ;  it 
only  punished  him  in  case  his  application  was  unsuccessful. 
But  how  many  would  make  the  application,  at  the  risk  of 
being  subjected  to  the  pains  and  penalties  of  prcemunire  ? 
It  was  a  tyrannical  law.  It  admitted  the  existence  of  a 
right,  but  sought  to  deprive  the  citizen  of  it  by  means  at 
once  indirect  and  cruel.  By  the  enactment  of  such  a  law, 
the  Legislature  of  Virginia  would  virtually  say  to  every  one 
within  her  borders :  You  have,  indeed,  the  right  to  be  tried 
by  a  Federal  court,  when  charged  with  a  certain  offence ; 
nevertheless,  in  such  case,  we  will  bring  you  before  one  of 
our  State  courts,  and  if  you  there  ask  for  your  acknowl 
edged  rights  and  are  refused,  or  if  you  even  presume  to 
plead  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  tribunal,  and  your 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON".  77 

plea  is  not  sustained,  you  will  be  punished  with  fine,  ban 
ishment,  or  death.  Such  a  law  would  be  a  blot  on  the 
statute  book  of  an  enlightened  State,  and  is  fit  only  for  the 
code  of  a  Draco. 

It  is  superfluous  to  say  that  neither  the  law  suggested 
by  Jefferson — a  law  begotten  by  spite,  and  born  of  folly— 
nor  any  similar  law,  was  ever  enacted  in  Virginia. 

8.  In  the  year  1798,  Mr.  Jefferson  drafted  nine  resolu 
tions,  a  copy  of  which  he  sent  to  George  Nicholas,  of  Ken 
tucky.  His  purpose  was  to  have  them  adopted  by  the  Legis 
lature  of  that  State,  and  the  Legislatures  of  other  States. 
These  resolutions,  modified,  have  become  famous,  under  the 
name  of  "  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  '98,"  frequently 
contracted  to  "the  Resolutions  of  '98." 

The  first  affirmed  that  the  Federal  Constitution  is  a  com 
pact  between  the  States,  to  which  each  of  the  thirteen  States 
is  a  party  ;  that  "each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for 
itself,  as  well  of  infractions  of  the  compact,  as  of  the  mode 
and  measure  of  redress." 

The  second  declares  that  the  Constitution  has  delegated 
to  Congress  a  power  to  punish  treason,  counterfeiting  the 
securities  and  current  coin  of  the  United  States,  piracies 
and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas,  and  offences  against 
the  law  of  nations,  and  "  no  other  crimes  whatsoever." 
There  is  not  a  native-born  man  in  the  country,  who  does 
not  know  that  Congress  has  power  to  punish  other  offences, 
for  example,  offences  pertaining  to  the  mails. 

The  fifth  applies  the  right  alleged  in  the  first,  to  three 
Acts  of  the  preceding  Congress :  the  Alien  Law,  the  Sedition 
Law,  and  the  Law  to  punish  counterfeiting  the  notes  of  the 
United  States  Bank,  each  of  which  three  laws  is  pro 
nounced  in  the  resolution,  "not  law,  but  altogether  void 
and  of  no  force" 


78  .VOTES  ON 

The  seventh  postpones  action  upon  sundry  other  Congres 
sional  enactments,  until  they  can  be  subjected  to  "  revisal 
and  correction." 

The  eighth  directs  the  appointment  of  a  "  Committee  of 
Conference  and  Correspondence,"  who  are  to  communicate 
the  foregoing  resolutions  to  the  several  States,  and  inform 
them  that  Kentucky,  with  all  her  esteem  for  the  co-States 
and  for  the  Union,  is  determined  "  to  submit  to  undelegated, 
and,  consequently,  unlimited  powers  in  no  man  or  body  of 
men  on  earth,"  and  "  that  any  State  has  a  natural  right,  in 
cases  not  within  the  compact,  to  nullify,  of  its  own  authority, 
all  assumptions  of  power  by  others  within  its  limits." 

It  further  authorizes  and  instructs  the  Committee  afore 
said,  to  ask  the  co-States  u  to  concur  in  declaring  these  acts 
void  and  of  no  force,  and  each  to  take  measures  of  its  own 
for  providing  that  neither  of  these  acts,  nor  any  other  of 
the  General  Government,  not  plainly  and  intentionally  au 
thorized  by  the  Constitution,  shall  be  exercised  within  their 
respective  limits,"  In  this  resolution,  too,  it  is  set  forth 
that  any  appeal  or  communication  to  Congress  in  regard  to 
acts  deemed  unconstitutional  is  manifestly  improper,  since 
Congress  is  no  party  to  the  compact,  but  merely  its  crea 
ture." 

The  ninth  gives  to  the  said  Committee  power  to  corre 
spond  with  other  like  committees,  to  be  appointed  by  the 
"co-States,"  and  requires  a  report  of  its  proceedings  to  be 
made  to  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Nicholas  was  wise  enough  not  to  submit  all  of  these 
resolutions  to  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky.  He  rejected  the 
eighth  and  ninth,  and  substituted  for  them  two  drawn  up 
by  himself,  the  purport  of  which  was,  that  the  seven  pre 
ceding  resolutions  should  be  laid  before  Congress  by  the 
Senators  and  Representatives  of  Kentucky  ;  that  they  should 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  79 

use  their  best  endeavors  to  procure  the  repeal  of  the  obnox 
ious  acts  at  the  next  session,  and  should  ask  the  Representa 
tives  of  the  other  States  to  concur  with  them  in  the  effort 
to  effect  this  repeal.  Not  a  single  State  Legislature  adopted 
the  resolutions,  so  carefully  elaborated  by  Jefferson.  That 
of  Kentucky  passed  seven  of  them,  together  with  Mr. 
Nicholas's  substitutes  for  the  eighth  and  ninth.  The  Vir 
ginia  Legislature  adopted  resolutions  similar  in  spirit  to 
those  of  Jefferson,  and  less  objectionable  in  language,  but 
omitted  entirely  the  clause  which  declared  void  the  three 
laws  specified  by  him.  The  resolutions  of  Kentucky  were 
never  laid  before  Congress.  The  Legislatures  of  ten  States 
disavowed  the  right  of  a  State  Legislature  to  decide  on  the 
validity  of  Acts  of  Congress. 

Had  the  resolutions  of  Jefferson  been  adopted  and  acted 
upon  by  the  several  States,  or  by  two  or  three  of  the  strong 
ones,  at  or  about  the  time  they  were  drafted,  it  is  clear  that 
there  would  have  been  a  collision  between  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  and  some  of  the  States;  the  recalcitrant  States  would 
have  withdrawn  from  the  Union,  for  the  central  authority 
was  not  then  powerful  enough  to  prevent  this,  even  had  it 
made  the  attempt,  and  the  child  of  the  Revolution,  now  a 
mighty  nation,  would  have  died  in  its  cradle. 

Scattered  broadcast  by  the  party  successors  of  Jefferson, 
these  resolutions,  like  the  dragon's  teeth  sown  by  Cadmus, 
sprang  up  armed  men,  armed  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Republic.  They  embody  a  great  political  heresy,  the  doc 
trine  of  state-sovereignty — not  of  state-rights — but  of  state- 
sovereignty,  a  distinction  of  incalculable  importance.  This 
heretical  monster  slew  five  hundred  thousand  of  those  people 
whom  Jefferson  professed  to  love  so  well,  cost  the  nation 
three  billions  of  treasure,  burdened  her  with  an  enormous 
debt,  beneath  which  she  now  groans,  and  suddenly  set  loose 


80 


NOTES    ON 


in  our  midst  millions  of  ignorant,  degraded  beings,  to  dis 
seminate  among  us  vice,  superstition,  disease  and  crime. 
This  monster's  existence  was  incompatible  with  the  existence 
of  the  nation,  and  he  was  doomed  to  death.  He  was  ex 
ecuted  by  the  flaming  sword  of  war,  perished  amid  tho 
thunders  of  battle,  perished  beyond  the  hope  of  resurrection. 
Sic  semper  hostibus  patricE  !  Long  live  the  Republic! 

9.  Mr.  Jefferson  thought  it  desirable  that  the  Supreme 
Court  should   possess  a  veto  power,  similar  to  that  of  the 
President. 

10.  He   held   that  it  was   better  for  the  welfare  of  the 
people  to  have  newspapers  without  a  government,  than  a 
government  without  newspapers.     It  seems  incredible  that  a 
sane  man  could  enunciate  such  a  proposition,  but  in  a  letter, 
dated  January  16th,  1787,  written  by  him  from  Paris  to  Ed 
ward  Carrington,  are  these  words :  "  Were  it  left  to  me  to 
decide  whether  we  should  have  a  government  without  news 
papers,  or  newspapers  without  a  government,  I  should  not 
hesitate  a  moment  to  prefer  the  latter." 

11.  Jefferson    approved   and    defended   the   Democratic 
clubs  of  his  day.     These  clubs  were  not  the  harmless  asso 
ciations  which  in  our  time  bear  the  same  name.     Washing 
ton,  in  a  letter  to  Burgess  Ball,  writes:  "The  Democratic 
Society  of  Philadelphia,  from  which  the  others  have  eman 
ated,  was  instituted  by  Mr.  Genet  for  the  express  purpose 
of  dissension,  and  to  draw  a  line   between   the  people  and 
the  government,  after  he  found  that  the  officers  of  the  latter 
would  not  yield  to  the  hostile  measures  in  which  he  would 

embroil  them Can  anything  be  more  pernicious 

to  the  peace  of  society  than  self-constituted  bodies,  forming 
themselves   into   permanent  censors,  and  under  the  shades 
of  night  resolving  that  acts  of  Congress  are  illegal  and  un 
constitutional  ?  Such  declarations,  after  Congress,  the  legal  1  v 


THOMAS    JEFFKR8ON.  * 

constituted  legislative  body  of  the  country,  had  duly  con 
sidered  and  discussed   any  law  are/'  he  continues,  "  well 
calculated  to  disturb  the  public  tranquillity."     He  further 
informs  Mr.  Ball  that  these  societies  proclaim  that  all  who 
"  vote  contrary  to  their  dogmas  are  actuated    by  selfish 
motives,  or  under   foreign   influence,  nay,  are  traitors  to 
their  country."    In  his  speech  to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
after  the  suppression  of  the  revolt   in   Pennsylvania,  the 
President  said  :  "  Let  the  citizens  determine  whether  it  has 
not  been  fomented  by  combinations  of  men  who,  careless 
of  consequences,  have  disseminated  from  an  ignorance  or  per 
version  of  facts,  suspicions,  jealousies  and  accusations  of  the 
whole  government."     To  this  part  of  the  address  the  Senate 
thus   responded  :  "  Our  anxiety,  arising  from  the  licentious 
and  open  resistance  to  the  laws  in  the  west  counties  of  Penn 
sylvania,  has  been  increased  by  the  proceedings  of  certain 
self-created  societies,  relative  to  the  laws  and  administration 
of  the   government ;    proceedings,    in    our   apprehension, 
founded  in   political  error,  calculated,  if  not  intended,  to 
disorganize  our  government,  and  which  by  inspiring  delusive 
hopes  of  support,  have  been  instrumental  in  misleading  our 
fellow-citizens  in  the  scene  of  the  insurrection."     Washing 
ton  afterwards  wrote  Mr.  Jay  that  there  could  be  no  doubt 
in  the  mind  of  any  one  carefully  examining  the  subject,  that 
these  clubs  fomented  and  caused  the  insurrection,  and,  in 
another  letter,  predicted  that,  if  not  checked,  they  would  des 
troy  the  Republic.     These  clubs  were   modelled  after  the 
anarchical  Jacobin   clubs   of   France.     One  of  them,  the 
Madisonian  of  Charleston,  was  formally  recognized  as  an 
affiliated  branch  of  the  Jacobin  Club  of  Paris.     The  motion 
for  this  recognition  was  made  by  Col  lot  d'  Herbois.     These 
clubs,  which  were  composed  in  great  part  of  foreigners,  and 
instituted  by  Genet  for  the  purpose  of  involving  the  country 


82  NOTES    OX 

in  hostilities  with  England,  which  said  Chief  Justice  Mar 
shall,  concealed,  under  the  imposing  garb  of  watchfulness 
over  liberty,  "  designs  subversive  of  all  those  principles 
which  preserve  the  order,  the  peace  and  the  happiness  of 
society  ; "  which  took  for  their  model  the  Jacobin  Club  of 
Paris,  and  were  patronized  by  d'  Herbois,  who,  in  one  day, 
slew  fifteen  hundred  innocent  persons ;  which,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  President  and  the  Senate,  were  responsible  for  the 
Whiskey  Insurrection;  which  Washington  declared  would 
destroy  the  Republic ;  these  clubs,  Jefferson  approved  and 
sustained.  So  much  was  he  attached  to  them,  that  when 
the  President  ventured  in  his  annual  speech  to  suggest  the 
propriety  of  imposing  some  restraint  upon  them,  he  flew 
into  a  fury,  and  asserted  that  the  President  had  attacked 
"  the  freedom  of  discussion,  and  was  guilty  of  an  inexcusable 
aggr'ession"  After  the  death  of  Robespierre,  the  Con 
vention  expelled  the  Jacobin  Club  of  Paris  from  its  hall, 
and  finally  closed  its  doors.  Mr.  Monroe,  then  Minister  at 
Paris,  in  the  dispatch  announcing  this  action  of  the  Con 
vention,  expressed  his  approval  of  it.  The  suppression  of 
the  Paris  club  and  Mr.  Monroe's  approval  thereof,  went 
far  towards  vindicating  Washington's  opinions  respecting 
the  Democratic  clubs  in  this  country.  After  the  publica 
tion  of  Mr.  Monroe's  dispatch,  they  lost  their  influence  and 
soon  ceased  to  assemble.  As  Justice  Marshall  said,  the 
death  of  the  Jacobin  clubs  was  "  the  unerring  signal  "  of 
the  death  of  the  Democratic  societies,  so  closely  were  they 
allied — they  were  nourished  from  the  same  fountain  of 
fanaticism,  and  dried  up  at  the  same  time. 

12.  He  held  that  one  generation  has  no  power  to  bind 
the  succeeding  generation  by  law,  or  by  contract.  In  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  September  6th,  1789,  he  sets  forth 
his  views  on  the  subject  in  full.  Here  are  some  extracts 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  83 

from  the  letter :  •"  The  earth  belongs  in  usufruct  to  the 
living ;  it  is  self-evident  that  the  dead  have  neither  power 
nor  right  over  it.  The  portion  occupied  by  any  individual 
ceases  to  be  his,  when  himself  ceases  to  be,  and  reverts  to 
the  society"  "  No  man  can  by  natural  right  oblige  the  lands 
he  occupied,  or  the  persons  who  succeed  him  in  that  occupancy, 
to  the  payment  of  debts  contracted  by  him"  u  The  wife  or 
children  take  the  land  free  of  debts."  After  some  illus 
trations,  he  proceeds :  "  Then,  no  generation  can  contract 
debts  greater  than  can  be  paid  during  its  own  existence." 
He  computes  that  a  generation  at  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
can  contract  for  thirty-four  years  ;  at  twenty-two  years  of 
age,  for  thirty-three  years,  and  so  on.  (This  is  a  miscalcula 
tion  or  oversight,  the  time  is  much  shorter,  as  will  appear 
further  on.)  "  On  similar  grounds,  it  may  be  proved  that 
no  society  can  make  a  perpetual  constitution,  or  a  perpetual 
law.  Every  constitution,  and  every  law  naturally  expires 
at  the  end  of  thirty-four  years/'  etc.  The  above  theories 
were  not  youthful  fancies,  but  settled  convictions ;  for  on 
June  24th,  1813,  he  writes  to  John  W.  Eppes  :  "  Each  gen 
eration  has  the  usufruct  of  the  earth  during  its  continuance ; 
when  it  ceases  to  exist,  the  usufruct  passes  on  to  the  succeed 
ing  generation,  free  and  unencumbered,  and  so  on,  forever." 
"  Each  generation,"  he  thinks,  "  is  a  distinct  nation,"  with 
no  right  to  bind  the  succeeding  generation,  "  more  than  the 
inhabitants  of  another  country/'  "  At  nineteen  years,  then, 
from  the  date  of  a  contract,  the  majority  of  the  contractors 
are  dead,  and  the  contract  with  them."  In  a  letter  to  Dr. 
Gem,  he  revises  the  computation  made  in  the  letter  to  Madi 
son,  and  thus  concludes  :  "  Then,  the  contracts,  constitution, 
and  laws  of  every  society  become  void  in  nineteen  years  from 
their  date"  On  September  llth,  1813,  he  says,  in  so  many 
words,  that  the  State  is  not  bound  to  pay  the  debts  of  a  pre- 


XOTES    OX 


ceding  generation.  From  the  foregoing,  it  would  appear 
that  Jefferson  wished  to  introduce  a  sort  of  general  Statute 
of  Limitations,  based  on  what  he  called  natural  justice, 
which  would  outlaw  every  obligation,  private  and  public,  at 
the  expiration  of  nineteen  years  from  its  date,  and  annul 
every  law  after  the  lapse  of  nineteen  years  from  its  enact 
ment.  As.  by  the  laws  of  nature,  the  majority  of  men  of 
legal  age  is  replaced  by  a  new  majority  of  such  men  every 
nineteen  years,  no  national  or  private  contract,  he  taught, 
was  valid  beyond  that  length  of  time.  This  means  that 
each  generation  shall  inherit  from  its  predecessors  all  the 
benefits  and  advantages  of  their  skill,  wealth,  knowledge, 
and  industry,  but  take  none  of  their  debts,  burdens,  or  obli 
gations,  a  doctrine  which  not  only  evinces  a  strange  lack 
of  gratitude,  but  is  repugnant  to  both  common  sense,  and 
common  honesty.  No  wonder  that  Jefferson,  in  communi 
cating  this  theory  to  Mr.  Eppes,  stated  that  the  letter  was 
for  his  eye  only. 

13.  Having  reached  the  advanced  position,  that  newspapers 
without  governments  are  preferable  to  governments  without 
newspapers,  Mr.  Jefferson  had  but  a  single  step  to  take  in 
order  to  attain  the  summit  of  political  wisdom.  This  ex 
alted  position  he  assumed,  when  he  thus  wrote  to  Mr.  Car- 
rington:  "-Those  societies,  (as  the  Indians)  which  live  with 
out  government  enjoy,  in  their  general  mass,  an  infinitely 
greater  degree  of  happiness  than  those  who  live  under  the 
European  governments.  .  .  .  Among  them,  public  opinion 
restrains  morals  as  powerfully  as  laws  ever  did  anywhere"  — 
Letter  of  January  16th,  1787. 

Here  is  a  precious  collection  of  political  whimsicalities. 
Were  it  possible  to  reduce  them  to  practice,  they  would  de 
stroy  organized  society,  and  substantially  prevent  the  estab 
lishment  of  government  among  men.  But  what  else  than 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  85 

whimsicalities  could  be  expected  from  one  who  proposed  for 
the  new  States  to  be  formed  from  the  Northwest  territory, 
the  following  names :  Michigania,  Chersonesia,  Metropo- 
tamia,  Pelispia,  Polypotamia,  and  Assenisipia  ?  Though 
bold  in  speculation,  Mr.  Jefferson  was  irresolute,  almost 
timid,  in  action  ;  he  shrank  from  a  trial  of  most  of  his  po 
litical  theories.  When  he  had  an  opportunity  of  testing 
some  of  his  peculiar  notions  of  government,  he  scarcely 
attempted  to  do  so.  Much  of  his  reputation  is  due  to  the 
fact,  that  during  his  two  Presidential  terms,  he  made  few 
innovations  on  the  established  order  of  things,  but  admin 
istered  public  affairs  pretty  much  as  they  had  been  admin 
istered  by  the  men  whose  measures  he  had  denounced,  and 
whose  motives  he  had  aspersed. 

Hamilton  characterized  Jefferson  as  "  a  man  of  subli 
mated  and  paradoxical  imagination,  entertaining  and  propa 
gating  opinions  inconsistent  with  dignified  and  orderly 
government."  The  words  " sublimated  and  paradoxical'7 
aptly  describe  his  imagination,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  are 
applicable  to  his  whole  mind. 

The  more  his  theories  of  government  are  examined,  the 
more  clearly  will  it  appear  that  he  was  a  mere  tyro  in  state 
craft.  He  wandered  in  the  vast  and  prolific  field  of  political 
economy,  and,  like  a  child,  plucked  here  and  there  a  flower 
that  pleased  him,  but  he  was  almost  entirely  ignorant  of 
the  wise  legislative  husbandry,  which  causes  that  field  to 
yield  rich  harvests  of  national  strength  and  prosperity. 


86  NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER  XL 

ARE    HIS    "AXA"    RELIABLE? 

MR.  JEFFERSON'S  own  statements  respecting  them,  raise 
doubts  of  their  reliability.  Three  of  these  statements  are 
as  follows  :  1 .  "  Twenty-five  years  or  more  from  their  dates, 
I  have  given  the  whole  a  calm  revisal :"  2.  "Some  of  the 
informations  I  had  received,  are  now  cut  out  from  the  rest, 
because  I  have  seen  that  they  were  incorrect  or  doubtful,  or 
merely  personal  or  private:"  3.  "I  should  not,  perhaps, 
have  thought  the  rest  worth  preserving,  but  for  the  testi 
mony  against  the  only  history  of  the  period,  that  pretends 
to  have  been  compiled  from  authentic  and  unpublished 
documents."  These  statements  are  found  in  the  prefix  or 
preface  to  the  Ana. 

1.  The  revision  was  made  in  1818,  which  date  is  but 
twelve  years  after  the  last  entry  in  the  Ana.  In  1818, 
Jefferson  was  75  years  of  age,  and,  therefore,  not  likely  to 
have  a  clear  recollection  of  what  happened  a  quarter  of  a 
century  previously.  2.  The  chief  value  of  such  writings 
as  the  Ana,  is  attributable  to  the  fact  that  they  are  a  sort  of 
record  of  current  events,  made  at  the  time  they  transpired, 
by  one  who  participated  in  them.  Transactions  in  which 
Mr.  Jefferson  took  part,  he  certainly  could  relate  more  cor 
rectly  at  or  about  their  dates,  than  he  could  twenty-fir^ 
years  afterwards.  He  hardly  revised  the  copies  of  his  opin 
ions,  or  the  documents  filed  with  them.  A  revisal  of  his 
reflections  on  certain  men,  or  of  his  opinions  of  others,  is 
not  very  important.  3.  The  Ana  were  preserved  for  a  cer- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  87 

tain  purpose,  namely  :  To  testify  against  Marshall's  Life  of 
Washington.  It  is  known  that  Jefferson,  besides  being 
politically  opposed  to  Marshall,  heartily  disliked  him  on 
account  of  his  rulings  in  Burr's  case,  and  that  the  ex-Presi 
dent's  party-prejudices  were  strong.  Another  statement, 
made  in  the  prefix,  is  shown  to  be  entirely  incorrect,  by  a 
simple  examination  of  the  Ana  themselves.  The  statement 
is  that  they  contain  copies  of  official  opinions,  submitted 
while  Jefferson  was  in  the  cabinet,  with  "  sometimes  the 
documents  in  the  case,"  and  notes  of  transactions  pertain 
ing  to  his  official  duties  as  Secretary  of  State,  whereas,  they 
contain  not  only  such  papers  as  are  mentioned,  but  his  opin 
ions  of  some  of  the  prominent  men  of  his  period,  anecdotes 
of  others,  accounts  of  cabinet  meetings,  incidents  of  the 
time,  notices  of  events  that  occurred  while  he  was  Vice- 
President,  and  of  some  that  happened  when  he  was  Presi 
dent.  Seven  pages  are  devoted  to  Aaron  Burr.  All  the 
entries  respecting  him  are  dated  after  Jefferson  left  the 
cabinet.  In  the  prefix,  it  is  recorded  that  John  Adams 
"  was  for  two  hereditary  branches  of  government,  and  one 
honest  elective  one."  On  July  29th,  1791,  Adams  wrote 
Jefferson.  "  If  you  suppose  that  I  ever  had  a  design,  or  a 
desire  of  attempting  to  introduce  a  government  of  Kings, 
Lords  and  Commons,  or  in  other  words  an  hereditary  Ex 
ecutive,  or  an  hereditary  Senate  either  into  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  individual  State,  you  are 
wholly  mistaken."  When  the  prefix  contains  such  errors, 
can  reliance  be  placed  upon  the  Ana  themselves?  How 
much  that  was  correct,  did  the  revision  eliminate?  How 
much  that  was  incorrect,  did  it  insert  ?  How  much  was 
originally  doubtful  ?  Under  the  date  of  January  26th, 
1804,  the  Ana  contains  an  account  of  an  interview  of 
Aaron  Burr  with  Jefferson.  In  it,  he  states  that  Burr 


88  NOTES    OX 

"  began  by  recapitulating  rapidly  that  he  had  come  to  New 
York  a  stranger,  some  years  ago/'  etc.  Mr.  M.  L.  Davis, 
in  his  Memoirs  of  Burr,  commenting  on  this  entry  asks : 
"  Now,  who  that  knows  the  history  of  Colonel  Burr's  life, 
will  believe  one  sentence,  or  one  word  of  this  statement  ?" 
Mr.  Morse,  in  his  life  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  characterizes 
the  Ana  as  "A  work  as  untrustworthy  as  it  is  interesting, 
a  blunderbuss,  which  the  aged  man  loaded  to  the  very 
muzzle  with  garbled  gossip,  but  carefully  forbade  to  be 
discharged,  until  he  himself  had  secured  the  safe  refuge  of 
the  grave." 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  89 


CHAPTER  XII. 

JEFFERSON    AS     GOVERNOR,    IN    TIME   OF    WAR. 

IN  the  year  1780,  while  the  English  officer,  Leslie,  was 
threatening  an  incursion  into  the  state  of  Virginia,  Jeffer 
son,  then  Governor,  thought  of  resigning  his  office.  Ed 
mund  Pendleton,  having  heard  of  this,  wrote  to  a  friend 
"  It  is  a  a  little  cowardly  to  quit  our  posts  in  these  bustling 
times.7'  By  a  despatch,  dated  December  9th,  Washington 
informed  Jefferson  that  a  large  British  force,  supposed  to 
have  a  Southern  destination,  was  about  to  sail  from  New 
York.  The  course  of  military  events,  rendered  it  very 
probable  that  Virginia  might  at  any  moment  be  invaded. 
On  December  29th,  twenty-seven  of  the  enemy's  vessels 
entered  the  capes  of  Virginia,  of  which  event  Jefferson  was 
next  day  apprised.  The  hostile  fleet  anchored  at  James 
town,  January  3d,  1781.  On  the  4th,  a  detachment  of 
"  830  men  and  thirty  horse/'  landed  at  Westover,  and  set 
out  for  Richmond,  which  they  reached  on  the  following 
day.  Notwithstanding  the  notice,  and  the  probability  that 
an  invasion  was  imminent,  there  was  no  force  ready  to  op 
pose  their  advance.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  effort, 
even  to  ascertain  the  plans  or  watch  the  movements  of  the 
invaders,  who  were  commanded  by  Arnold.  All  the  avail 
able  militia  having  been  ordered  to  Williamsburg,  where 
they  were  useless,  Arnold  met  with  no  resistance.  He 
marched  from  Westover  to  Richmond,  a  distance  of  twenty- 
five  miles,  "  without  receiving  a  single  shot." 

The  Legislature  dispersed  at  his  approach,  the  Governor 


90  NOTES    ON 

deserted  Richmond  under  cover  of  night,  and  the  city  was 
thus  left  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  traitor.  The  Gov 
ernor,  charged  with  the  defence  of  the  State,  and  having 
reason  to  expect  an  invasion  of  it,  made  no  defence, — fled 
from  its  defence.  He  admitted  to  Washington  that  "  no 
opposition  was  in  readiness."  The  commander-in-chief, 
through  Hamilton,  answered  :  "  It  is  mortifying  to  see  so 
inconsiderable  a  party  committing  such  extensive  depreda 
tions  with  impunity."  Arnold  seized  the  public  stores  at 
Richmond,  destroyed  the  cannon  foundry  and  burned  a 
large  quantity  of  tobacco,  as  well  as  many  public  and  private 
buildings.  General  Henry  Lee,  in  his  History  of  the 
Southern  War,  says  respecting  this  invasion:  "It  will 
scarcely  be  credited  by  posterity  that  the  Governor  of  the 
oldest  State  in  the  Union  and  the  most  populous,  should 
have  been  driven  out  of  its  metropolis  and  forced  to  secure 
personal  safety  by  flight,  and  its  archives  with  all  its  muni 
tions  and  stores  yielded  to  the  invader,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few,  which  accident,  rather  than  precaution,  saved  from 
the  common  lot.  Incredible  as  the  narrative  will  appear, 
it  is  nevertheless  true.'7  After  stating  some  of  the  injurious 
results  of  the  Governor's  flight,  the  General  exclaims : 
"  What  ills  spring  from  the  timidity  and  impotence  of 
rulers!  In  them,  attachment  to  the  common  cause  is  vain 
and  illusory,  unless  guided  in  times  of  difficulty  by  courage, 
wisdom  and  concert." — Vol.  ii.,  pp.  6-14. 

Henry  Lee,  in  his  Observations,  p.  133,  says  Jefferson 
"never  faced  the  enemy,  nor  even  observed  him,  and  until 
he  ascertained  that  Arnold  had  retreated  to  his  ships,  kept 
himself  behind  the  current  of  a  broad  and  unfordable  river, 
flitting  from  place  to  place,  hiding  his  guns  to  protect  them 
from  the  ' heavy  rains.'"  In  a  letter  to  General  Muhlen- 
berg,  the  Governor  unwittingly  exposes  the  incompetency 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  91 

or  the  neglect  of  some  one,  by  stating  that  Arnold,  on  his 
march  to  and  from  Richmond,  might  have  been  captured 
"  with  facility  by  men  of  enterprise  and  firmness."  There 
were  assuredly  many  such  men  in  the  State.  Why  were 
not  some  of  them  sent  to  capture  him?  Whose  duty  was 
it  to  send  them  ?  After  Arnold  had  returned  to  the  fleet, 
Jefferson  began  to  experience  a  strange  longing  for  his 
seizure.  It  was  this  longing  that  prompted  him  to  address 
the  letter  to  Muhlenberg,  to  whom  he  further  writes:  "It 
is  above  all  things  desirable  to  drag  him  from  those  under 
whose  wing  he  is  now  sheltered/'  It  really  seems  that 
Jefferson,  for  the  time  being,  believed  that  the  capture  of 
Arnold  was  the  most  desirable  of  all  military  achievements. 
He  certainly  evinced  more  interest  in  regard  to  that,  than 
he  appears  to  have  shown  in  regard  to  the  defence  of  his 
native  State.  He  asked  General  Muhlenberg  to  select  for 
the  capture  men  from  "  the  Western  side  of  the  mountains," 
and  gave  him  minute  directions  as  to  the  projected  enter 
prise,  some  of  which  can  scarcely  be  read  without  a  smile. 
"  The  smaller  the  number,"  he  remarks,  "  the  better,  so 
that  they  may  be  sufficient  to  manage  him.  Every  neces 
sary  caution  must  be  used  on  their  part  to  prevent  a  dis 
covery  of  their  design  by  the  enemy."  He  wished  them  to 
be  informed  that  "  their  names  will  be  recorded  with  glory  in 
history  with  those  of  Van  Wert,Paulding  and  Williams,"  and 
undertook  to  give  them,  if  successful,  five  thousand  guineas. 
This  plan  for  the  seizure  of  Arnold  having  failed,  Jefferson 
devised  a  second  one,  in  which  he  expected  to  have  the 
assistance  of  Washington  himself,  and  the  whole  French 
fleet.  This  magnificent  scheme  also  proved  abortive.  When 
Arnold  quitted  the  state,  Corn  wall  is  entered  it.  As  the 
Governor  had  been  occupying  his  own  time,  and  wasting 
that  of  army  officers  with  his  fanciful  schemes  for  seizing 


92  NOTES    ON 

a  single  individual,  Virginia  was  no  better  prepared  to 
resist  Corn  wall  is  than  she  had  been  to  repel  the  invasion  of 
Arnold.  In  this  extremity,  Jefferson  appealed  to  the  com- 
mander-in-chief  to  come  in  person  to  defend  his  "  own 
country.77  The  appeal  was  in  vain.  Tarleton  raided 
through  the  state  at  his  pleasure,  and  came  very  near  cap 
turing  the  Governor,  who  made  his  escape  from  Monticello 
about  ten  minutes  before  the  arrival  of  the  foe. 

In  1780,  Virginia  had  a  militia  of  fifty  thousand,  thirteen 
thousand  of  whom  had  their  homes  adjacent  to  the  seat  of 
war.  These  men  were  not  deficient  in  soldierly  qualities. 
The  soil  of  the  state  was  productive,  the  climate  genial. 
The  Legislature  had  invested  the  Governor  with  extraordi 
nary  powers,  and  was  ready  to  sustain  him  in  the  exercise 
of  still  greater  power,  should  the  public  exigencies  render  it 
necessary.  This  was  shown  by  the  large  vote  in  favor  of  a 
dictatorship.  Many'of  the  inhabitants  were  wealthy.  How 
did  Jefferson  avail  himself  of  these  unusual  advantages  for 
the  successful  discharge  of  the  duties  devolving  upon  him  ? 
We  have  seen  that  while  he  was  Governor,  his  state  was 
utterly  powerless  to  repel  even  the  small  force  commanded 
by  Arnold.  The  veteran  Steuben,  then  stationed  in 
Virginia  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  and  forwarding  re 
inforcements  to  General  Greene,  and  at  the  same  time 
aiding  in  her  defence,  was  indignant  that  nothing  was  done 
to  check  the  advance  of  that  force.  He  reported  that  there 
was  not  a  man,  except  those  sent  by  himself,  to  oppose  the 
progress  of  the  invaders.  He  complains  that  the  recruits 
gathered  by  him  were  not  supplied  with  arms,  declaring 
that  even  those  at  Richmond  were  sent  away  in  iuch  haste, 
on  the  approach  of  the  enemy,  that  they  could  not  be  found. 
After  repeated  requisitions,  made  in  vain,  he  ventured  to 
suggest  to  the  Governor  that  men  without  arms  could  only 


THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  y.j 

consume  provisions.  He  lacked  camp-kettles  and  tents, 
and  recommended  that  some  one  be  appointed,  whose  duty 
it  should  be  to  collect  the  scattered  tents  of  the  State.  In 
one  of  his  official  letters,  he  stated  that  with  all  his  importu 
nities,  he  did  not  think  he  would  have  been  able  to  equip  a 
certain  body  of  troops  in  six  weeks,  had  not  stores  arrived 
from  the  Northward  ;  and  that  "  nothing  can  be  got  from  the 
State  rather  for  want  of  arrangement,  than  anything  else."  In 
another,  he  asked  to  be  recalled  on  account  of  his  "  ill  suc 
cess."  When  General  Greene  first  saw  the  Virginia  re 
cruits,  at  Charlotte,  December  6th,  1780,  he  wrote  Jefferson : 
"  Your  troops  may  be  said  to  be  literally  naked,  and  I  shall 
be  obliged  to  send  a  considerable  number  of  them  away 

until  they  can  be  furnished  with  clothing No  man 

will  think  himself  bound  to  fight  the  battles  of  a  State  that 
leaves  him  to  perish  for  want  of  clothing."  General  Muh- 
lenberg  reported  that  he  had  two  thousand  men  in  camp, 
with  but  three  hundred  muskets,  and  that  it  was  "deroga 
tory  to  the  honor  of  the  State/7  that  a  mere  handful  of  in 
vaders  should  be  suffered  to  remain  so  long  within  her 
borders,  but,  that  without  arms,  he  could  do  nothing.  In  a 
letter  to  Washington,  dated  February  10th,  1781,  the  Gov 
ernor  admitted  a  deficiency  of  3188  men  in  Virginia's  quota 
of  troops. 

Why  is  it  that  in  the  years  1780,  and  1781,  Virginia, 
with  her  wealth,  population,  and  resources,  neither  repelled 
hostile  inroads  upon  her  own  territory,  nor  furnished  her 
full  contingent  of  troops  to  the  Continental  army  ?  That 
she  sent  her  men  into  the  field  poorly  equipped  and  half 
clad?  Baron  Steuben  indicated  the  answer  to  these  ques 
tions,  when  he  reported  that  it  was  "  rather  for  want  of  ar 
rangement  than  anything  else.77  Her  Governor  was  deficient 
in  executive  ability;  he  was  a  good  word-monger,  but  in 


94  NOTES    ON 

action  he  failed.  He  asked  Congress  "  particularly  to  aid  us 
with  cartridge-paper  and  boxes,  the  want  of  which,  small 
as  they  are,  renders  our  stores  useless/7  What  insufficiency 
does  this  reveal  ?  Were  there  no  persons  in  Virginia 
capable  of  making  these  "  small  "  articles?  If  not,  why 
were  not  competent  men  brought  from  the  Northern  cities  ? 
Besides  his  want  of  executive  ability,  he  was  hampered 
by  a  sensitiveness,  verging  on  timidity,  that  caused  him 
to  shrink  from  incurring  the  odium,  that  might  result  from 
a  proper  enforcement  of  the  laws  for  putting  Virginia 
in  a  state  of  defence.  Money  was  essential  for  any  effort 
in  that  direction — it  was  not  forthcoming.  Jefferson  ad 
mitted  that  it  could  be  obtained  by  force,  but  hesitated  be 
cause  that,  as  he  said,  was  "the  most  impalatable  of  all 
substitutes."  The  laws  empowered  him  to  impress  horses 
for  the  military  service ;  they  were  numerous  in  the  State, 
but  most  of  them  belonged  to  the  planters,  whom 
Jefferson  did  not  venture  to  offend,  and  the  impressment 
languished.  In  consequence  of  this,  when  Cornwallis  en 
tered  Virginia,  he  readily  possessed  himself  of  about  a 
thousand  fine  horses.  Thus,  animals,  that  should  have  been 
employed  in  the  service  of  the  State  or  of  the  country,  were, 
by  mat-administration,  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  enemy. 
The  troops  which  Tarleton  sent  forward  in  advance  to  cap 
ture  the  Governor  at  Monticello  were,  most  probably, 
mounted  on  some  of  these  very  animals.  Had  he  been 
taken  prisoner,  and  escorted  to  British  headquarters  by  men 
riding  upon  horses  just  seized  by -the  enemy  in  Virginia, 
the  event  would  have  been  a  rude,  but  not  entirely  unde 
served  reminder  of  neglected  duty.  In  answer  to  those 
who  imputed  to  him  inefficiency  at  this  period,  the  Gover 
nor  pleaded  that  he  was  "  unprepared  by  his  line  of  life 
and  education  for  the  command  of  armies." 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  95 

Prescott,  Knox,  Howard,  Lee,  Greene,  were  not  bred  to 
arms,  yet  they  and   others,  without  a   military  education 
became  distinguished  officers  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution. 
But  it  was  not  necessary  that  he  should  "  command  armies." 
No  one  blamed  him  for  declining  to  perform  such  service. 
It  is  admitted  that  many  excellent  men  are  utterly  unsuited 
for  military  operations,  and,  no  doubt,  he  was  one  of  them. 
As  Governor  he  should  have  encouraged,   stimulated,  and 
directed  the  citizens;  he  should  have  pointed  out  the  ad 
vantages  to  the  common  cause  that  would  result  from  cour 
age,  energy,  and  activity,  and  the  damage  that  would  be 
inflicted  upon  that  cause  by  indolence,  apathy,  and  illiber- 
ality.     He  should  have  sought  counsel  of  the  best  soldiers 
and  the  best  civilians;  he  should  have  been  diligent  in  sea 
son  and   out  of  season ;  vigilant   in   observing  the   move 
ments  of  the  foe ;  careful  that  the  management  of  every 
department  of  the  public  service  was  intrusted  to  the  per 
son  best  suited  to  administer  it.     He  should  have  seen  to  it 
that  the  recruits  were  properly  organized,  armed,  equipped, 
fed,  and  clothed,  and  made  as  comfortable  as  circumstances 
would  permit,  while  in  the  State;  he  should,  have  despatched 
as  rapidly  as  possible  those  of  them  destined  for  the  Conti 
nental  army.    These  and  similar  duties  were  devolved  upon 
him,  in  those  stirring  times,  by  his  official  position.     It  will 
hardly  be  asserted   that   he  thoroughly  performed  any  of 
them  ;  some  of  them  he  scarcely  attempted   to  discharge. 
For  example,  Steuben  writes  Washington  :  "  Since  the  Vir 
ginia  line  was  detailed  to  the  Southern  army,  it  was  never 
regularly   formed,  nay,  since  I   have  been   in  the  United 
States,  it  has  never  had  a  regular  organization."     But  it  is 
said  that  the  voice  of  accusation  in  regard  to  these  matters 
should  be  silenced  by  the  exculpatory  resolution  of  the  Vir 
ginia  Legislature.     Let  us  see.     After  the  raid  of  Arnold, 


96  NOTES    ON 

George  Nicholas  preferred  charges  against  the  Governor, 
touching  his  conduct  and  management  of  affairs  during  the 
raid.     Owing  to  the  dispersion  of  the  Legislature,  they  were 
not  then  acted  upon.     At  the  next  session,  a  committee  was 
appointed,  November  26th,  1781,  "  To  state  any  charges, 
and  receive  such  information  as  may  be  offered,  respecting 
the  administration  of  the  late  Executive."     It  will  be  per 
ceived  that  the  committee  was  not  authorized  to  make  any 
investigation.     In   the  meantime,  Jefferson  had  received  a 
copy  of  the  charges,  and  been  elected  to  the  House  of  Dele 
gates.     Soon  after  the  organization  of  the  House,  he  rose 
and  stated  that  he  was  now  ready  to  answer  every  accusation 
that  might  be  brought  against  him.     Mr.  Nicholas  was  not 
present.     No  one  spoke.     Jefferson  then  read  the  charges 
against  himself,  or,  more  properly,  the  interrogatories  which 
had  been  propounded  to  him  in  regard  to  his  official  action 
during  the  period  mentioned  above,  and  also  the  answers  to 
them  which  he  had  prepared.     There  was  no  reply.     The 
committee   having   reported    that   "  no   information  being 
offered  on  the  subject,  except  rumors,  their  opinion  is  that 
the  rumors  are  groundless;  "  the  House,  and  subsequently 
the  Senate,  passed  a   resolution,  not  only  exculpatory,  but 
laudatory.     A  resolution  thus  passed  was  not  a  vindication 
— not  an  acquittal.     How  could  there  be  an  acquittal  on 
certain  charges,  when  there  had  been  no  investigation  as  to 
their  truth  or  falsity  ?     The  mere  ipse  dixit  of  the  accused 
was  accepted  as  a  full  answer  to  them.     The  issue  of  these 
proceedings  may  be  accounted  for  on  other  grounds  than  a 
conviction   of  Jefferson's  non-culpability.     The  surrender 
of  Cornwallis,   on   October  19th,  a  few  weeks  before  the 
report  of  the  committee,  removed  all  apprehension  of  other 
desolating  invasions.     It  was  the  harbinger  of  peace.     All 
hearts  were  aglow  with  the  expectation  of  long-deferred 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  97 

independence.  It  was  an  era  of  good  feeling.  Why  dis 
turb  the  universal  joy,  by  a  prosecution  that  could  accom 
plish  no  good  ?  Why  bring  reproach  upon  a  distinguished 
citizen,  whose  renown  was  part  of  the  renown  of  the  State? 
Moreover,  a  vote  of  censure  upon  the  Executive,  under  the 
circumstances,  would  have  been  a  reflection  upon  the  Com 
monwealth  and  its  citizens.  Possibly,  too,  some  of  the  leg 
islators  who  favored  the  resolution  exculpating  Mr.  Jeffer 
son,  were  prompted  to  this  action  by  feelings  similar  to  those 
of  the  Jews,  who  went  out  of  the  Temple  one  by  one  when 
the  Saviour  said  :  "  He  that  is  without  sin  among  you,  let 
him  first  cast  a  stone  at  her."  It  is  hardly  to  be  expected 
that  legislators,  who  had  four  times  adjourned  and  dis 
persed  at  the  approach  of  the  enemy,  would  very  strongly 
condemn  the  Governor  for  being  somewhat  disconcerted  by 
the  proximitv  of  the  same  disturbing  cause. 

Though  his  friends  assert  that  the  resolution  is  a  vindi 
cation,  the  whole  proceeding  was  very  unsatisfactory  to 
Jefferson  himself.  His  reply  to  Mr.  Monroe,  who  urged 
him  to  be  present  in  the  Assembly  at  its  next  session,  shows 
his  shame  and  humiliation,  and  admits  his  consciousness  of 
public  condemnation.  In  this  reply,  he  writes,  May  20th, 
1 782  :  "  Before  I  ventured  to  declare  my  determination  to 
withdraw  from  public  employment,  I  considered  that  I  had 
even  lost  the  small  estimation  I  had  before  possessed."  He 
could  have  borne  the  disapprobation  of  the  people,  he  says, 
but  that  of  their  representatives  was  a  shock  on  which  he 
had  not  calculated.  "  But  in  the  meantime,"  he  continued, 
"  I  had  been  suspected  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  without 
the  least  hint  .  .  .  being  made  public,  which  might  restrain 
them  from  supposing  that  I  stood  arraigned  for  treason  of 
the  heart,  and  not  merely  weakness  of  the  head  ;  and  I  felt 
that  these  injuries  had  inflicted  a  wound  on  my  spirit  which 


98  NOTES    ON 

will  only  be  cured  by  the  all-healing  grave."  It  is  not  the 
"integrity"  of  Jefferson  that  is  here  in  question,  nor  is  it 
his  "ability/'  both  of  which  are  lauded  in  the  resolution; 
it  is  his  inefficiency  of  which  complaint  is  made.  The  evi 
dence  of  this  inefficiency  is  too  strong  to  be  brushed  away 
by  any  resolutions  of  a  sympathizing  assembly,  least  of  all 
by  a  resolution  adopted  under  the  circumstances  above  de 
tailed.  Some  of  this  evidence  has  been  presented.  Here 
is  more.  Colonel  Meade,  a  Virginian,  who  had  been  on 
Washington's  staff,  but  who  was  in  his  native  State  when 
Arnold  made  his  incursion,  declared  that  it  was  a  "  shame" 
that  the  traitor  escaped  so  easily.  In  regard  to  that  event, 
the  Colonel  further  wrote :  "  The  misfortune,  in  the  present 
invasion,  was  that  in  the  confusion  the  arms  were  sent  every 
where,  and  no  timely  plan  laid  to  put  them  into  the  hands 
of  the  men  who  were  assembling."  General  Greene,  towards 
the  close  of  J 780,  writes:  "  The  numerous  militia  which 
have  been  kept  on  foot  (in  Virginia)  have  laid  waste  almost 
all  the  country,  and  the  policy,  if  persisted  in,  must  in  a 
little  time,  render  it  almost  impracticable  to  support  a  regular 
body  of  troops  sufficient  to  give  protection  and  security  to 
the  State.  The  expenses  attending  this  business  in  the 
waste  of  stores  exceeds  all  belief."  General  Steuben,  having; 

"  o 

selected  four  hundred  picked  men  as  a  reinforcement  for 
General  Greene,  was  surprised  at  receiving  a  paper  "  signed 
by  the  officers,  complaining  of  the  ill-usage  by  the  State, 
and  of  the  distressed  condition  of  officers  and  men,  and 
concluding  that  until  something  was  done  for  them,  they 
would  not  think  of  marching."  These  men  were  the  f<  best 
provided  "  of  Muhlenburg's  corps. — Steuben1  s  Letter  of  De 
cember  4th,  1780. 

On  December  18th,  the  Baron  informs  the  commander- 
in-chief  that,  although   many  of  the  "  abuses,"  which  kept 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  99 

so  many  men  from  the  field,  had  been  abolished  in  the 
Northern  army,"  in  the  Virginia  line  they  have  reached 
their  highest  pitch.  .  .  .  The  officers  do  not  care  for  the 
soldiers,  and  they  scarcely  know  the  officers  who  have  to 
command  them.  .  .  .  This  State,  having  only  a  handful  of 
regulars  in  the  field,  is  continually  ransacked  by  bands  of 
officers  and  soldiers,  who  are  drawing  pay  and  rations  for 
doing  no  service  at  all,  while  they  are  committing  excesses 
everywhere."  In  May,  1781,  Steuben  complains  that 
"  only  two  men  have  been  employed  by  the  State  for  the 
reparation  of  arms  since  January."  On  May  23d,  Lafay 
ette,  then  in  Richmond,  writes  to  Hamilton :  "  General 
Greene  has  directed  rne  to  take  command  in  this  State.  It 
then  became  my  duty  to  arrange  the  departments,  which  I 
found  in  the  greatest  confusion  and  relaxation;  nothing 
can  be  obtained,  and  yet  expenses  are  enormous.  .  .  .  Gov 
ernment  wants  energy,  and  there  is  nothing  to  enforce  the 
laws."  On  May  5th,  General  Greene  reported  that  the 
two  thousand  men  promised  to  him  from  Virginia,  and 
anxiously  expected,  were  still  delayed,  and  expressed  fears, 
based  upon  information  received,  that  but  few  of  them 
would  in  the  end  join  him.  Later,  the  same  General  wrote 
to  Jefferson  himself:  "The  tardiness,  and  finally  the  coun 
termanding  the  militia  ordered  to  join  this  army,  have  bee* 
attended  with  the  most  mortifying  and  disagreeable  conse 
quences."  For  the  actual  "  countermanding  "  Jefferson  is 
not  responsible,  but  he  is  responsible  for  the  shameful  tardi 
ness,  without  which  it  would  not  have  been  possible. 

In  March,  1781,  there  were  in  General  Muhlenberg's 
camp  but  eight  rounds  of  ammunition  to  each  man,  and 
provisions  for  four  days.  Towards  the  end  of  May,  the 
discontent  of  the  public  mind  with  the  existing  state  of 
affairs  became  so  serious,  that  the  project  of  a  dictator  for 


100  NOTES    OX 

Virginia  was  defeated  in  the  Assembly  by  only  a  few  votes. 
Would  nearly  all  the  members  of  the  Legislature  have  con 
curred  in  the  opinion  that  such  an  extraordinary  expedient 
was  necessary,  if  the  government  of  the  State  had  heretofore 
been  properly  administered  ?     If  no  blame  attached  to  him 
who  then  was  Governor,  if  he  had  done  all  that  was  possible 
under  the  circumstances,  if  his  past  official  conduct  had  in 
spired  confidence,  why  did  not  they  who  favored  a  dictator 
ship,  recommend  that  he  be  entrusted  with  unlimited  power  ? 
Why  was  the  name  of  Patrick  Henry  on  the   lips  of  the 
people?     No  one  thought  of  Jefferson  for  the  post,     Mr. 
Girardin  says  :  "  To  introduce  this  officer,  it  was  necessary 
to  place  Mr.  Jefferson  hors  de  combat."     Mr.  Randall,  his 
biographer,  states   that  "  all  the   misfortunes  of  the  period 
were  charged  upon  him"  (Jefferson).     On  June  3d,  Steuben 
reports  that  the  men  under  his  command,  over  five  hundred 
in  number,  had  neither  shoes   nor  shirts;  that  they  were 
perishing   in    the   wilderness   without   sufficient   clothing   to 
permit  them  to  drill;  that  he  had  received  arms  from  Phila 
delphia,  but  not  a  cartridge-box  or  a  saddle  was  in  store ; 
that  he  did  not  believe  a  single  article  of  either  kind  could 
be  procured  in  Virginia,  though  the  first  is  as  essential  to  a 
foot-soldier  as  the  last  is  to  a  mounted  man,  and  he  had 
several  times  given  notice  that  they  were  required.     Mr. 
Wirt  (Life  of  Patrick  Henry)  states  that  the  period  under 
consideration  was  one  of  "  almost  hopeless  darkness,  when 
the  energies  of  the  State  seem  to  have  been  pretty  nearly 
paralyzed." 

Such    was  the    condition    of  the   proud    and    populous 
Commonwealth  at  the  end  of  Jefferson's  two  years'  admin 
istration.     It  cannot  be  said  that  her  resources  had  been 
consumed  by  the  fires  of  war,  for  she  had  hardly  begun  to , 
be  the  theatre  of  military  operations.     Her  condition  was 


THOMAS    JJ5FFI/RSON.  J'V'  iOl 

traceable  to  other  causes.  The  impotence,  mentioned  by 
Lafayette,  the  negligence,  mismanagement,  and  other 
"abuses,"  of  which  Steuben,  that  faithful  and  energetic 
soldier,  had  often,  but  vainly  complained,  had  done  their 
work.  The  prediction  of  the  sagacious  Greene  in  regard  to 
a  certain  policy  was  verified. 

Mr.  Jefferson  appropriately  closed  his  gubernatorial  career 
by  retiring  to  Monticello,  and  virtually  abandoning  the 
government,  at  a  time  when  charges  against  him  for  official 
misconduct  were  pending,  and  when,  in  the  language  of 
Mr.  Benjamin  Harrison,  "  an  implacable  enemy  was  roam 
ing  at  large  in  the  very  bo \yels  of  the  State."  When  Jef 
ferson,  as  Governor  in  time  of  war,  is  compared  with  some 
of  the  famous  "War  Governors"  of  our  day,  his  inferiority 
strikingly  appears.* 

*  For  some  facts  and  references  in  this  note,  the  writer  is  indebted  to 
Hamilton's  History  of  the  Republic. 


ON 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

HIS    INDIRECTNESS. 

RIETHMULLER,  in  his  Life  and  Times  of  Hamilton,  states 
that  Jefferson,  when  a  hoy  at  school,  was  in  the  habit  of 
putting  forward  other  boys  to  ask  for  what  he  wanted. 
This  indirectness,  this  desire  to  avoid  personal  responsibility, 
which  characterized  the  child,  was  apparent  in  the  man. 
Though  he  organized  and  long  controlled  a  great  political 
party,  he  never  mounted  the  hustings  to  explain  or  defend 
its  tenets :  he  issued  no  pamphlets  or  open  letters  ;  he  con 
tributed  no  article  to  magazine  or  newspaper  in  advocacy 
of  his  own  doctrines,  or  in  refutation  of  those  of  his  political 
opponents.  Mr.  Hildreth,  in  his  history,  rightly  observes 
that  Jefferson  was,  perhaps,  the  only  prominent  man  of  his 
time,  who  "  never  touched  pen  to  paper  for  the  political 
enlightenment  of  the  contemporaneous  public."  The  bril 
liant  success  which  he  achieved  for  himself  and  his  party, 
was  won  by  the  agency  of  others.  He  was  the  most  skilful 
political  "wire-puller"  of  his  day.  But  he  was  much 
more.  He  was  an  efficient  organizer ;  he  possessed  great 
tenacity  of  purpose.  The  stirring  words,  too,  which  he 
addressed,  through  his  subalterns,  to  his  adherents,  were 
bugle-calls  to  battle.  He  so  finely  portrayed  the  beauties 
and  the  blessings  of  Republicanism,  so  strongly  denounced 
those  friends  of  monarchial  institutions  who,  he  pretended, 
were  striving  to  overthrow  it,  that  the  hearts  of  his  partisans 


THOMAS    JEFFER80N.  103 

glowed  with  enthusiam  for  the  good  cause,  and  with  indig 
nation  against  its  enemies. 

He  might  with  propriety  have  been  styled  the  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  Republicans,  but  for  the  fact  that  he  never 
appeared  at  the  head  of  his  forces.  When  Hamilton,  over 
the  signatures  of  "  Metellus  "  and  "  An  American,"  pointed 
out  the  inconsistency  of  a  man's  remaining  a  prominent 
member  of  an  administration,  whose  measures  he  was  op 
posing,  Jefferson  called  upon  Mr.  Madison  to  reply.  This 
fact,  standing  alone,  would  excite  no  surprise,  for  Jefferson 
was  well  aware  that,  in  an  open  controversy,  he  was  no 
match  for  his  great  rival,  whom  he  calls  "  a  colossus  to  the 
anti-Republican  party,"  and  "  a  host  within  himself "  It 
is,  however,  strange,  that  he  made  no  answer  to  any  of  the 
personal  attacks  upon  himself  in  the  press,  which  were  both 
numerous  and  bitter.  He  either  induced  some  one  else  to 
repel  such  assaults,  or  vented  his  wrath  in  letters  to  friends, 
and  awaited  a  convenient  opportunity  for  punishing  the 
offender.  No  private  or  political  reasons  overcame  his 
resolution  not  to  appear  in  the  newspapers.  The  publica 
tion  in  this  country  of  the  Mazzei  letter,  which  every  one 
attributed  to  Jefferson,  seemed  imperatively  to  demand  a 
public  explanation  from  him,  but  none  was  made.  He  was 
most  hostile  to  the  Jay  treaty,  earnestly  desired  to  prevent 
its  ratification  ;  but  instead  of  writing  strong  articles  in 
opposition  to  it,  he  entreated  Madison  "  for  God's  sake  take 
up  your  pen,  and  give  a  fundamental  reply  to  Curtius  and 
Camillus." 

The  pen  of  this  gentleman,  over  whom  he  acquired  great 
influence,  was  often  invoked,  and  several  times  placed  at 
his  service. 

Jefferson  did  not  meet  his  political  foes  face  to  face  in, 


104  XOTES   ON 

manly  combat.  He  assailed  them  in  private  letters,  to  be 
used  by  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed.  In  these 
letters,  he  rarely  attempted  to  show  that  the  dogmas  of  the 
Federalists  were  erroneous,  or  to  expose  the  fallacy  of  their 
arguments.  He  hurled  epithets  at  them;  ascribed  to  them 
unworthy  motives  and  ulterior  designs ;  or  charged  them 
with  actual  misconduct.  So  cautious  was  he,  that  these  im 
putations  and  charges  were  seldom  made  in  direct  terms. 
They  were  involved  in  circumlocution,  suggested,  insinu 
ated.  In  this  prudent  work  of  insinuation  he  excelled;  it 
was  congenial  to  his  nature. 

He  could  blast  a  man's  character  in  a  letter  with  such 
subtlety,  that  with  the  paper  before  you,  you  could  scarcely 
point  out  a  specific  sentence  to  denounce  as  false  or  slander 
ous.  A  passage  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Washington,  refer 
ring  to  Hamilton's  objection  to  the  appointment  of  Freneau 
as  translator  in  the  State  Department,  will  serve  as  a  speci 
men  of  Jefferson's  insinuated  slanders.  He  therein  declared 
that  he  never  could  have  "  imagined  that  the  man  who  has 
the  shuffling  of  millions  backwards  and  forwards  from 
paper  into  money,  and  money  into  paper,  from  Europe  to 
America,  and  America  to  Europe;  the  dealing  out  of  trea 
sury  secrets  among  his  friends  in  what  time  and  manner  he 
pleases,  and  who  never  slips  an  occasion  of  making  friends 
with  his  means,"  would  have  founded  a  charge  on  the 
appointment  mentioned.  Jefferson's  life  furnishes  some 
remarkable  instances  of  shrinking  from  responsibility  for 
one's  own  opinions.  Having  drawn  up  the  Resolutions  of 
1798,  he  communicated  them  to  Mr.  Nicholas,  with  the 
request,  that  the  name  of  the  author  should  not  be  revealed. 
When  he  wrote  his  famous  letter  to  Dr.  Rush  respecting 
religion,  he  desired  the  Doctor  not  to  give  it  publicity. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  105 

When  he  imparted  to  Madison  his  wild  theory  of  a  general 
bankruptcy,  and  a  recommencement  of  national  financial 
operations  every  nineteen  years,  he  urged  Madison  to  pro 
mulgate  it  as  his  own,  because  he  occupied  a  high  "station 
in  the  councils  of  his  nation,"  and  intimated  that  his  fine 
logical  powers  might  win  for  it  popular  approbation. 


106  NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

JEFFERSON    AND    GENET. 

THE  official  conduct  of  Mr.  Genet,  while  Minister  to  the 
United  States,  is  probably  without  a  parallel  in  the  history 
of  diplomacy.  He  abused  the  President,  and  openly  ex 
pressed  disdain  of  his  authority.  He  intimated  that  Wash 
ington,  in  his  course  towards  the  French  ambassador,  was 
instigated  by  foreign  influence,  told  him  that  in  a  certain 
contingency  he  should  have  awaited  the  action  of  Congress  ; 
declared  that  he  had  in  several  instances  transcended  his 
powers — that  he  did  not  represent  the  people;  charged  him 
with  violating  the  laws  of  his  country,  the  law  of  nations, 
and  the  treaties  of  the  United  States.  He  gave  instructions 
to  the  President  respecting  his  duties,  and  on  the  interpre 
tation  of  international  law.  He  asked  the  discharge,  at 
once,  of  the  whole  debt  owed  by  this  country  to  France, 
which  was,  by  agreement,  payable  in  instalments.  When 
informed  that  such  payment  was  impracticable,  Genet  greatly 
incensed,  retorted  that  this  refusal  "tended  to  accomplish 
the  infernal  system  of  the  king  of  England  and  of  the  other 
kings,  his  accomplices,  to  destroy  by  famine  French  free 
men  and  French  freedom,"  and  that  our  government  was 
guilty  of  "  a  cowardly  abandonment  of  their  friend,  France, 
in  her  hour  of  danger."  He  complained  that  he  "  had  met 
with  nothing  but  disgust  and  obstacles  in  the  negotiations 
with  which  he  had  been  charged."  He  threatened  forcible 
resistance  should  the  United  States  attempt,  in  a  certain 
matter,  to  assert  their  supremacy  over  their  own  territory. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  107 

He  informed  the  President  that  his  country  was  indebted 
to  France  for  its  independence. 

There  was  in  his  official  communications  an  assumption 
of  superiority,  peculiarly  offensive.  His  insolence  reached 
its  climax  in  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  July 
25th,  1793,  wherein  he  thus  writes:  "In  vain  does  the 
thirst  of  riches  preponderate  over  honor  in  the  political  bal 
ance  of  America.  All  this  condescension,  all  this  humility 
ends  in  nothing;  our  enemies  laugh  at  it.  And  the  French, 
too  confiding,  are  punished  for  having  believed  that  the 
American  notion  had  a  flag — that  they  had  some  respect  for 
their  laws,  some  conviction  of  their  strength,  and  entertained 
some  sentiment  of  dignity"  Such  an  insulting  document  was 
never  delivered  by  an  ambassador  to  the  government  to  which 
he  was  accredited.  Genet  did  not  offend  in  words  alone.  His 
acts  were,  if  possible,  characterized  by  more  arrogance  and 
audacity  than  his  letters.  Soon  after  his  arrival  at  Charles 
ton,  he  began  fitting  out  in  our  seaports  privateers,  to  prey 
upon  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain,  a  nation  with  which 
we  were  at  peace.  Without  asking  permission,  he  estab 
lished  in  our  maritime  towns  pretended  Courts  of  Admi 
ralty,  presided  over  by  French  consuls,  for  condemning 
and  selling  as  prizes,  English  or  Spanish  vessels,  captured 
by  the  cruisers  of  France.  He  enlisted  men,  native  and 
foreign-born,  to  serve  under  the  flag  of  his  country,  post 
ing  in  various  cities,  even  in  the  Federal  capital,  placards 
calling  for  recruits  for  the  French  army;  he  issued  some 
three  hundred  blank  commissions,  as  invitations  to  Ameri 
cans  to  man  privateers  or  enter  the  French  navy.  He 
organized  secret  clubs,  to  aid  him  in  his  nefarious  meas 
ures,  and  persuade  our  people  to  sympathize  and  cooperate 
with  him  in  his  opposition  to  the  government.  He  at 
tempted  to  arm  and  equip  within  our  borders,  expeditions 


108  NOTE8    ON 

for  the  invasion  of  Florida  and  Louisiana.  When  re 
minded  by  the  President  that  these  proceedings  were  con 
trary  to  the  comity  of  nations,  and  some  of  them  positive 
violations  of  international  law,  as  well  as  of  our  own  laws, 
he  replied  that  he  was  familiar  with  these  laws,  and  the 
President  was  mistaken  ;  this  too,  although  Vattel  states 
that  "The  man  who  undertakes  to  enlist  soldiers  in  a 
foreign  country,  without  the  sovereign's  permission,  vio 
lates  the  most  sacred  rights  of  the  prince  and  the  nation. 
This  crime  is  punished  with  the  utmost  severity,  in  every 
well-regulated  state.  Foreign  recruiters  are  hanged  with 
out  mercy."  Finding  remonstrance  in  vain,  the  President 
began  to  take  action  proper  to  vindicate  the  sovereignty  of 
the  nation.  Upon  this,  Genet  threatened  to  ignore  the 
legally  constituted  authorities,  and  appeal  directly  to  the 
people. 

The  despatch  of  the  Little  Democrat  to  cruise  as  a 
privateer,  was  the  most  outrageous  transaction  of  Genet. 
This  vessel,  originally  British,  had  been  captured,  brought 
into  our  waters,  and  condemned  as  a  prize  by  one  of  his 
improvised  Admiralty  Courts.  He  bought  her,  changed  her 
armament  from  two  to  fourteen  guns,  fitted  her  out,  and 
commissioned  her  as  a  privateer.  These  things  were  done 
at  Philadelphia,  the  capital  of  the  nation,  under  the  very 
eye  of  the  government,  in  undisguised  contempt  of  its  au 
thority,  after  he  had  been  informed  that  such  proceedings 
were  offensive  and  not  allowable.  Jefferson  saw  Genet  and 
asked  him  to  delay  the  departure  of  the  vessel  until  a  cer 
tain  day ;  he  would  make  no  promise,  but  said  she  would 
not  be  ready  by  the  day  indicated,  thus  leaving  the  impres 
sion  that  she  would  not  sail  before  the  time  specified.  The 
President  extended  international  etiquette  so  far,  as  to  ex 
press  to  Genet  the  wish  that  he  would  detain  her  until  her 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  109 

ease,  and  other  similar  ones,  then  under  consideration  by 
the  cabinet,  should  be  decided.  Notwithstanding  this  con 
descension,  on  the  part  of  Washington,  Genet  permitted  the 
Little  Democrat  to  put  to  sea,  without  according  to  our 
Executive  the  poor  courtesy,  due  unasked,  of  awaiting  an 
official  examination  of  the  important  questions,  legal  and 
diplomatic,  pertaining  to  her  capture,  sale,  and  new  equip 
ment.  He  did  this,  moreover,  when  he  knew  that  the 
President  had  reason  to  believe  from  Jefferson's  account  of 
his  interview,  that  the  vessel  would  not  sail  before  the  time 
mentioned  ;  when  he  was  aware  that  assurances  had  been 
given  to  Great  Britain,  that  the  fitting  out  by  the  French 
in  our  harbors  of  privateers  to  operate  against  her  mer 
chantmen  should  cease,  and  at  a  time  when  he  was  detain 
ing  two  English  vessels,  unlawfully  captured,  the  restora 
tion  of  which  the  President  had  demanded.  But  what 
cared  he  for  the  embarrassment  that  he  occasioned  the 
Government?  His  real  purpose  was  to  force  this  country 
into  hostilities  with  England,  and  he  was  ready  to  employ 
whatever  means  were  necessary  to  accomplish  that  purpose. 
The  state  of  affairs  which  Genet  and  his  abettors  had 
brought  about  in  June,  1793,  has  been  thus  vividly  de 
picted  :  "  The  United  States  presented  an  extraordinary 
spectacle.  In  each  of  their  great  seaports  were  seen  tri- 
colored  ensigns  floating  aloft  above  the  American  standards. 
French  ships  of  battle  moved  so  as  to  command  their  feeble 
batteries.  The  American  coast  lined  with  privateers  plun 
dering  their  unprotected  commerce.  Cruisers  of  their  ally 
roaming  on  the  high  seas,  commissioned  to  capture  any  neu 
tral  vessel  freighted  with  the  great  staples  of  the  country 
for  their  accustomed  marts.  An  intestine  party,  banded 
together  and  rallying  against  their  government,  tendering 
homage  to  a  foreign  minister,  after  his  known  insults  to  the 


110  NOTES    ON 

President ;  that  minister  rebuking  Washington  as  a  violator 
of  the  laws,  dictating  to  him  his  duty,  appearing  to  divide 
with  him  the  affections  of  the  people;  the  cabinet  in  dis 
cord  ;  the  powers  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  apparently  ready 
to  fall  from  his  hands."  Where  stood  Jefferson  at  this 
epoch  ?  What  was  his  attitude  in  this  hour  of  his  country's 
trial  ?  Was  he  on  the  side  of  Washington,  or  on  that  of  the 
French  minister?  Officially,  as  Secretary  of  State,  he 
replied  to  the  arrogant  letters  of  Genet,  and  pointed  out 
the  illegality  of  his  transactions  in  dignified  and  fitting 
terms.  This  he  did,  at  the  request  of  the  President,  but  in 
the  cabinet  meetings,  he  opposed  a  demand  for  the  restora 
tion  of  vessels  captured  by  privateers  fitted  out  in  our  ports. 
He  opposed  the  forcible  detention  of  such  privateers,  after 
Genet  had  been  notified  that  they  must  not  put  to  sea ;  he 
opposed  the  publication  of  the  correspondence  between  Genet 
and  our  government;  he  opposed  the  transmission  of  a 
statement  of  Genet's  proceedings  to  Mr.  Morris,  to  be  laid 
before  the  French  National  Convention  ;  he  opposed  the 
making  of  a  demand  for  the  recall  of  the  obnoxious 
minister.  In  fact,  he  heartily  favored  none  of  the  impor 
tant  measures,  which  were  resorted  to  in  order  to  check  the 
mad  career  of  this  haughty  and  overbearing  foreigner. 
There  was  one  exception — he  approved  the  Proclamation 
of  Neutrality.  He  would  have  been  more  consistent  had 
he  opposed  this  also.  After  the  proclamation  was  issued, 
Hamilton  wrote  a  series  of  articles  in  explanation  and  de 
fence  of  it,  whereupon  Jefferson  entreated  Madison  to 
answer  Hamilton  and  attack  it.  Madison  thus  urged,  at 
tacked  both  the  form  and  substance  of  the  proclamation, 
that  the  Secretary  of  State  had  approved  in  the  cabinet. 

When  Washington  received  Genet  coldly,  he  repaired  to 
Jefferson,  who  listened  patiently  to  the  story  of  his  alleged 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  Ill 

grievances,  and  to  his  complaints  against  those  ungrateful, 
unworthy  Americans,  who  hesitated  to  jeopardize  everything 
in  aid  of  a  sister  Republic  ;  endeavored  to  sooth  and  pacify 
him,  professed  to  be  his  friend,  talked  to  him,  no  doubt,  of 
tyrants  and  aristocrats,  of  equality  and  fraternity,  and  sent 
him  away  encouraged  to  persevere  in  his  evil  ways.  The 
Democratic  journals,  too,  espoused  his  cause.  The  National 
Gazette,  Jefferson's  mouth-piece,  took  the  lead  in  this  un 
patriotic  work.  It  declared  that  the  French  minister  was 
"  too  accomodating  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of  the  United 
States."  In  one  of  its  articles,  respecting  enlistment  in  the 
French  service,  was  the  following  violent  passage :  "  Thanks 
be  to  God,  the  sovereignty  still  resides  with  the  people,  and 
neither  proclamations,  nor  royal  demeanor  and  state  can 
prevent  them  from  exercising  it."  Another  article  pro 
claimed  that  Genet  had  as  much  right  to  appeal  to  the 
people  as  the  President  had;  that  his  interpretation  of  our 
treaty  with  France  was  as  good  as  the  President's,  and  that 
the  people  must  ultimately  interpret  it.  The  key-note  of 
this  French  music,  performed  on  Jefferson's  organ,  was  struck 
by  himself  in  a  private  letter  to  Madison,  written  in  April, 
when  Genet's  advent  was  expected.  The  minister's  arrival, 
he  wrote,  would  "  furnish  occasion  for  the  people  to  testify 
their  affection  without  the  cold  caution  of  the  Government." 

Such,  for  some  time,  was  the  course,  and  such  the  atti 
tude  of  Jefferson,  and  of  those  under  his  influence,  towards 
the  man,  who  again  and  again  "  flung  full  defiance  in  the 
face"  of  the 'administration,  of  which  Jefferson  was  prime 
minister;  who,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  was  "  disrespectful, 
even  indecent  to  the  President "  (Letter  to  Madison,  July 
7th),  and  who  had  committed  offences,  the  penalty  of  which, 
according  to  Vattel,  was  death.  And  when,  at  last,  he 
assented  to  the  demand  for  Genet's  recall,  this  assent  was 


112  NOTES    ON 

given  not  because  Genet's  conduct  to  Washington  had  been 
"  indecent/'  not  because  he  had  contemned  the  authority  of 
the  government,  and  trampled  upon  the  law  of  nations,  not 
because  he  had  in  his  letter  of  July  25th  insulted  the  whole 
American  people,  or  because  he  had  endeavored  to  embroil 
us  with  England,  but  because  the  rising  flood  of  public 
indignation  against  the  minister  threatened  to  overwhelm 
the  Democratic  party,  and,  with  it,  the  Secretary  of  State. 

When  it  was  noised  abroad  that  the  impudent  Frenchman 
had  insulted  Washington,  and  even  intended  to  disown 
entirely  the  government  of  which  he  was  the  head,  the 
affection  of  the  people  for  their  venerated  President  mani 
fested  itself  in  an  unmistakable  manner.  Jefferson  quickly 
trimmed  his  sails  for  the  popular  breeze  by  cutting  loose 
from  Genet,  and  acquiescing  in  a  measure  which,  thereto 
fore,  he  had  stoutly  opposed.  In  a  confidential  letter  to 
Madison,  dated  August  llth,  he  says  :  "  I  believe  it  will  be 
true  wisdom  in  the  Republican  party  to  approve  unequivo 
cally  of  a  state  of  neutrality,  to  avoid  little  cavils  about 
who  shall  declare  it;  to  abandon  Genet  entirely,  with  ex 
pressions  of  strong  friendship  and  adherence  to  his  nation, 
and  confidence  that  he  has  acted  against  their  sense.  In 
this  way,  we  shall  keep  the  people  on  our  side  by  keeping  our 
selves  in  the  right.  ...  I  adhered  to  him  because  I  knew 
what  weight  we  should  derive  to  our  side,  by  keeping  in  it  the 
love  of  the  people  for  the  French  cause  and  nation.  Finding 
at  length  that  the  man  was  incorrigible,  I  saw  the  necessity  of 
quitting  a  wreck,  that  would  sink  all  who  should  cling  to  it." 

The  motive  that  prompted  Jefferson  to  adhere  to  Genet, 
and  to  desert  him,  was  apparently  the  same,  a  desire  to  pro 
mote  the  success  of  his  party,  and  not  concern  for  the  public 
welfare.  The  letter  asking  the  recall  of  Genet  was  an  able 
and  convincing  paper,  severely  arraigning  him  for  his  mis- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON. 


deeds.  When  he  learned  that  Jefferson  was  the  author  of 
it,  he  was  much  angered,  and  addressed  to  the  Secretary  a 
spirited  epistle.  In  it  he  stated  that  certain  persons  in  the 
United  States,  often  mentioned  to  him  as  royalists,  oppo 
nents  of  popular  rights,  and  Anglo-men,  had  determined  to 
thwart  him  in  his  laudable  effort  to  unite  the  two  Republics 
in  resistance  to  tyrants,  by  demanding  his  recall.  He  up 
braided  Jefferson,  for  permitting  himself  to  be  the  generous 
instrument  of  these  enemies  of  liberty,  in  their  designs 
against  him,  "  after  he  had  pretended  to  be  his  friend,  after 
he  had  initiated  him  into  mysteries,  which  have  inflamed  his 
hatred  against  all  those  who  aspire  to  arbitrary  power."  He 
said,  further,  that  if  he  had  expressed  his  desires  and  pur 
poses  to  the  American  Government  with  too  much  boldness, 
he  had  thus  erred  because  "  it  was  not  in  his  character  to 
speak,  as  many  people  do,  in  one  way,  and  to  act  in  another  ; 
to  have  an  official  language,  and  a  language  confidential" 


NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER  XV. 

JEFFERSON   AS    A    DEMAGOGUE. 

ONE  of  the  peculiarities,  that  distinguished  Jefferson  from 
most  of  the  prominent  men  of  his  time,  was  the  zeal  with 
which  he  pursued  popularity.  Some  of  his  eminent  con 
temporaries  doubtless  prized  highly  the  respect  and  esteem 
of  their  fellow-citizens,  but  Jefferson,  more  assiduously  than 
any  of  them,  employed  the  means  best  calculated  to  win  the 
favor  of  the  multitude.  Though  the  assistance  received  by 
this  country  from  France  during  our  Revolution,  was  ren 
dered  by  King  Louis  XVI.,  at  his  own  royal  will  and 
pleasure,  Jefferson,  after  he  began  his  quest  for  popularity, 
always  spoke  of  our  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  French  people, 
as  if  they,  and  not  the  King,  had  aided  us  in  our  hour  of 
need  and  peril.  He  complained  that  Washington,  in  his 
dress,  equipages,  and  receptions,  assumed  the  trappings  of 
royalty,  and  denounced  these  things  as  unrepublican.  He 
wished  all  ceremony  at  the  "  Executive  House"  discon 
tinued  ;  he  seldom  rode  in  a  carriage,  except  on  long  jour 
neys — that  mode  of  conveyance  was  too  aristocratic;  he 
went  to  his  inauguration  on  horseback,  and  humbly  hitched 
his  own  horse.*  He  was  ever  flattering  the  people,  praising 
their  purity  and  their  good  sense,  prating  about  their  rights, 
and  charging  with  a  design  to  invade  their  liberty,  men 

*  Travels  for   four  and  a  half  years,  in   the    United  States,   by   John 
Davis.     London,  1803. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  115 

who  had  achieved  that  liberty,  while  he  was  begging  their 
help,  or  fleeing  from  the  enemy.  He  insisted  that  Wash 
ington,  Hamilton,  and  others  were  intent  upon  establish 
ing  a  monarchy,  while  he  and  his  followers,  especially 
himself,  were  engaged  in  a  desperate  struggle  against  such 
a  perversion  of  the  government,  thus  inducing  the  ignorant 
masses,  for  ignorance  was  then  general,  to  believe  that  he 
was  their  defender  and  champion,  ever  battling  to  save 
them  from  the  tyranny  of  a  king,  from  being  thrust  back 
into  the  thraldom,  from  which  they  had  just  been  delivered. 
How  adroit,  and  how  unprincipled !  He  led  the  people  to 
believe,  too,  that  the  Federalists  were  attempting  to  thwart 
"the  popular  will."  He  accused  Hamilton  of  corruption 
in  office,  pretended  he  was  under  British  influence.  He  said 
that  all  titles,  including  Excellency,  Honor,  Worship,  the 
harmless  Esquire,  even  the  unoffending  Mister,  were  incon 
sistent  with  Republican  simplicity,  and  should  be  abolished. 
He  perceived  the  superiority  of  the  English  Government 
and  institutions  of  his  time  over  those  of  France.  He  well 
knew  the  impurity  of  the  social  life  of  the  French  ;  he  was 
convinced  that  there  was  little  domestic  happiness  among 
them,  that  conjugal  love  was  blasted  by  the  fires  of  passion, 
that  in  consequence  of  the  prevailing  corruption,  the  educa 
tion  of  young  Americans  in  France  was  not  desirable,  and 
wrote  these  facts  to  his  friends ;  but  he  persuaded  the  people 
that  he  was  the  special  admirer  of  everything  pertaining  to 
France,  and  thus  availed  himself  of  American  affection  for 
that  country.  Observing  the  popular  antipathy  to  royalty, 
he  execrated  kings  and  monarchies  in  general,  and  wished 
them  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  Yet  he  recom 
mended  the  continuance  of  royalty  in  France.  He  said 
that  most  of  the  European  nations  were  unfit  for  popular 
government,  but  raged  against  the  slightest  tendency  to 


116  NOTES    ON 

kingly  authority,  or  any  appearance  thereof  in  this  country. 
In  this  way,  he  played  upon  the  self-love  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  by  implying  that  they  were  fit  for  a  democratic 
government,  and  secured  their  votes. 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Gerry,  of 
Massachusetts,  will  illustrate  Jefferson's  method  of  flattering 
the  multitude,  and  depreciating  the  leaders  of  the  party 
opposed  to  him:  "But  the  people  will  rise  again.  They 
will  awake  like  Samson  from  his  sleep,  and  carry  away  the 
gates  and  posts  of  the  city.  You,  my  friend,  are  destined 
to  rally  them  again  under  their  former  banners.  The  people 
will  support  you,  notwithstanding  the  howlings  of  the  rav 
enous  crew  from  whose  jaws  they  are  escaping.  It  will  be 
a  great  blessing  to  our  country,  if  we  can  once  more  restore 
harmony  and  social  love  among  its  citizens.  It  is  almost 
the  first  object  of  my  heart.  With  the  people  I  have  hopes 
of  effecting  it.  But  their  coryphcei  are  incurables.  I  ex 
pect  little  from  them."  Instead  of  discouraging  the  unrea 
sonable  hatred  of  England,  entertained  by  the  vulgar,  he 
endeavored  to  turn  it  to  account,  by  insulting  the  British 
envoy,  Mr.  Merry.  That  gentleman  had  not  in  any  manner 
wronged  him  ;  and  merely  as  a  well-bred  stranger,  to  say 
nothing  of  diplomatic  etiquette,  was  entitled  to  courteous 
treatment.  But  on  the  occasion  of  his  formal  presentation, 
by  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  Jefferson,  then  President,  the 
latter  received  him  in  slippers  down  at  the  heels,  with  coat, 
pantaloons,  and  undergarments  indicative  of  utter  sloven 
liness,  and  indifference  to  appearances — in  a  state  of  negli 
gence,  that  seemed  actually  "  studied."  This  Mr.  Merry 
states  in  a  communication  to  Josiah  Quincy.  One  can 
imagine  how  this  reception  of  the  British  minister,  as  well 
as  Jefferson's  designation  of  all  kings  as  "  vermin,"  de 
lighted  the  populace  of  that  time.  Finally,  he  taught  that 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  117 

insurrections  should  be  lightly  dealt  with,  lest  the  people 
be  discouraged  in  their  efforts  to  maintain  their  liberties. 
By  such  devious  ways,  and  such  ignoble  devices  did  Mr. 
Jefferson  court  popular  favor.  In  view  of  them,  "  Torn  " 
Moore  can  almost  be  pardoned  for  writing  of  him : 

"  Inglorious  soul, 

Which  creeps  and  winds  beneath  a  mob's  control, 
Which  courts  the  rabble's  smile,  the  rabble's  nod." 


118  NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

JEFFERSON    AND    BURR. 

ON  June  17th,  1797,  Jefferson  wrote  to  Aaron  Burr  as 
follows  :  "  Perhaps  some  general  views  of  our  situation 
and  prospects,  since  you  left  (Philadelphia),  may  not  be 
unacceptable.  At  any  rate,  my  letter  will  give  me  an  op 
portunity  of  recalling  myself  to  your  memory,  and  of  evi 
dencing  my  esteem  for  you/'  On  December  15th,  1800, 
Jefferson  thus  addressed  him  :  "  I  feel  most  sensibly  the 
loss  we  sustain  of  your  aid  in  our  new  administration.  It- 
leaves  a  chasm  in  my  arrangements  which  cannot  be  ade 
quately  filled.  I  had  endeavored  to  compose  an  adminis 
tration  whose  talents,  integrity,  names,  and  dispositions, 
should  at  once  inspire  unbounded  confidence  in  the  public 
mind,  and  insure  a  perfect  harmony  in  the  conduct  of  the 
public  business."  He  concludes  this  letter  with  "  affection 
ate  salutations."  His  esteem  for  Burr  had  now  ripened 
into  affection.  On  February  1st,  1801,  he  sent  Burr  a 
manuscript  missive  in  regard  to  a  letter  alleged  to  have  been 
written  by  Jefferson  to  Judge  Breckenridge,  in  which  were 
expressions  highly  injurious  to  Burr.  In  this  missive,  he 
pronounces  this  alleged  letter  a  forgery,  declares  that  he 
never  wrote  to  the  Judge  a  sentiment  unfriendly  or  disre 
spectful  to  Burr,  and,  again  assuring  the  latter  of  his  esteem 
and  respect,  warns  him  against  those  wicked  men  who 
would  "  sow  tares  between  us."  He  closes  in  these  terms  : 
fi  A  mutual  knowledge  of  each  other  furnishes  us  with  the 
best  test  of  the  contrivances  which  will  be  practiced  by  the 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  119 

enemies  of  us  both."  These  extracts  from  Mr.  Jefferson's 
letters  leave  no  doubt  as  to  his  opinion  of  the  person  to 
whom  they  were  addressed.  From  them  we  learn  that  he 
esteemed,  respected,  and  admired  Burr;  that  he  confided  in 
his  integrity  ;  that  their  relations  were  those  of  friends.  On 
turning  to  Jefferson's  Ana,  we  find  under  date  of  January 
26th,  ]804,  these  entries  :  "  I  had  never  seen  Colonel  Burr 
till  he  became  a  member  of  the  Senate.  His  conduct  soon 
inspired  me  with  distrust.  I  habitually  cautioned  Mr. 
Madison  against  trusting  him  too  much."  "  He  was  always 
at  market,  if  they  had  wanted  him."  On  April  20th,  1807, 
Jefferson  wrote  his  friend,  William  B.  Giles  :  "  I  never,  in 
deed,  thought  Burr  an  honest,  frank-dealing  man."  There 
is  certainly  a  surprising,  not  to  say  startling,  contrast  be 
tween  Jefferson's  three  letters  to  Burr,  and  the  private 
memoranda  above  cited ;  between  what  Jefferson  wrote  to 
Burr,  and  what  he  wrote  of  Burr.  It  may  be  alleged  in 
explanation  of  this  contrast,  that  the  memoranda  were  made 
three  years  after  the  date  of  the  last  letter  to  Burr,  and  that, 
in  the  interval,  Jefferson  had,  For  sufficient  cause,  changed 
his  opinion  in  regard  to  Burr's  character.  This  explana 
tion  will  not  avail  for  two  reasons:  First. — When  Jefferson 
wrote  to  Burr  the  letter  last  mentioned,  they  had  been  ac 
quainted  for  ten  years,  since  Burr  entered  the  Senate  in 
1791.  As  Jefferson  was  Secretary  of  State  while  Burr  was 
Senator,  and  as  they  belonged  to  the  same  political  party,  it 
is  almost  certain  that  they  were  frequently  thrown  together. 
An  acquaintance  of  ten  years,  under  such  circumstances, 
must  have  enabled  each  to  form  a  pretty  accurate  estimate 
of  the  other's  character.  Second. — Jefferson,  in  the  Ana, 
states  that  he  began  to  distrust  Burr  soon  after  the  latter 
became  Senator,  and  from  the  letter  to  Mr.  Giles,  we 
learn  that  Jefferson  never  thought  Burr  an  honest,  frank- 


120  NOTES   ON 

dealing  man.  It  appears  then,  from  Jefferson's  own  writ 
ings,  that  he  entertained  the  same  opinion  of  Burr  when 
he  wrote  the  three  letters,  as  he  did  when  he  made  the  entry 
in  the  Ana.  How  shall  Mr.  Jefferson  escape  from  the  di 
lemma  of  self-contradiction,  in  which  his  letters  to  Burr, 
his  Ana,  and  his  Giles  letter  place  him  ?  Did  he  really 
purpose  calling  to  his  cabinet,  as  one  of  his  confidential 
advisers  on  great  questions  of  national  policy,  a  man,  upon 
whom  he  habitually  cautioned  one  of  his  friends  not  to 
place  too  much  reliance?  Did  the  sage  of  Monticello  in 
deed  feel  an  affection  for  one  whom  he  never  thought  hon 
est  ?  Did  he  wish  to  secure  and  preserve  the  friendship  of 
a  person  whom  he  distrusted  ?  Or  were  all  these  professions 
of  esteem,  and  regard,  and  affection  insincere,  and  intended 
merely  to  secure  the  aid  of  Burr's  talents  and  influence  in 
promoting  the  success  of  Jefferson's  own  schemes?  That 
they  were  so  intended,  may  be  inferred  from  the  circum 
stances  under  which  the  letters  to  Burr  were  written,  from 
their  language,  from  the  habits  of  the  writer,  and  from  the 
political  history  of  the  time. 

A  brief  examination  of  these  letters,  in  connection  with 
the  entries  in  the  Ana,  respecting  Burr,  and  with  Jeffer 
son's  subsequent  treatment  of  him,  will  reveal  some  of  the 
methods  employed  by  Jefferson  in  the  management  of  his 
personal  and  party  interests,  and  thus  throw  light  on  his 
real  character.  Note  that  Jefferson  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
writing  to  Burr;  indeed,  it  is  nut  a  little  remarkable,  that 
the  three  letters  mentioned  are  the  only  letters  to  him  found 
in  Jefferson's  published  correspondence,  voluminous  as  it  is. 
Note  that  neither  of  them  was  written  in  reply  to  a  verbal 
or  written  communication  from  Burr,  or  at  the  instance  of 
another  person.  Note  that  the  first  letter  begins  with  a 
wish  to  be  recalled  to  Burr's  recollection,  and  to  express 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  121 

esteem  for  him.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  a 
letter  opening  thus,  and  written  on  the  writer's  own  motion, 
to  one  with  whom  he  had  never  before  corresponded,  indi 
cates  the  writer's  desire  for  some  favor  from  the  person  so 
addressed.  Was  there,  in  this  case,  a  favor  desired  ?  And 
if  so,  what  was  it  ?  When  the  letter  was  written  Jefferson 
was  Vice-President  under  John  Adams,  President,  whom  it 
was  generally  believed  a  Kepublican  would  succeed.  Jeffer 
son  was  a  very  prominent  Republican.  He  had  been  men 
tioned  as  a  candidate  for  the  succession.  He  had  aspirations 
for  the  Presidency.  As  early  as  1794,  he  wrote  to  Mr. 
Madison  of  "  double  delicacies  "  on  that  subject,  which  had 
prevented  him  from  expressing  himself  freely  to  the  latter. 
He  knew  that  the  electoral  votes  of  New  York  were  almost 
indispensable  to  secure  his  election.  He  knew  also  that 
Burr  was  the  man  most  powerful  in  controlling  those  votes. 
He  was,  of  course,  anxious  to  secure  the  cooperation  of  one 
so  influential,  in  advance  of  all  competitors.  Under  these 
circumstances,  he  penned  the  first  letter  to  Burr,  flattering 
him,  inquiring  particularly  after  his  health,  expressing  seri 
ous  apprehensions  for  the  safety  of  "  our  Republican  Govern 
ment/'  and  indirectly  asking  a  reply,  by  expressing  the 
wish  that  he  could  give  the  writer  some  solution  of  his 
"  painful  and  doubtful  questions,"  concerning  the  dangers 
that  menaced  the  Republic.  Can  it  be  doubted  that  this 
letter  was  written  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  Burr's  assist 
ance  in  mounting  to  the  chief  magistrate's  chair  ?  To  one 
familiar  with  Jefferson's  correspondence  and  methods,  it 
seems  most  probable,  that  he  hoped  and  expected  Burr  to 
reply  that  the  "  questions  "  would  be  solved  by  the  elevation 
of  the  Vice-President  to  the  Presidency. 

Now  as  to  the  second  letter,  dated  December  15th,  1800. 
In  the  preceding  November,  there  was  an  election  for  Presi- 


122  NOTES    OX 

dential  electors.  The  Republican  candidates  were  Jefferson 
and  Burr.  The  Federalists  voted  for  Adams  and  Pinckney. 
By  the  Constitution,  as  it  then  was,  the  person  who  re 
ceived  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electoral  votes 
was  the  President,  but,  "  if  there  be  more  than  one  who 
have  such  a  majority,  and  have  an  equal  number  of  votes, 
then  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  immediately " 
choose  one  of  them  for  President.  Jefferson  had  reason  to 
believe  that  he  and  Burr  had  each  received  a  majority  and 
an  equal  number  of  votes,  and  that  the  election  must  devolve 
on  the  House.  In  such  case,  a  coalition  between  the  Fed 
eralists,  and  the  Republicans  who  favored  Burr,  would  re 
sult  in  his  election,  provided  he  acquiesced  in  the  arrange 
ment. 

How  important,  then,  for  Jefferson  to  ascertain  the  views 
and  purposes  of  the  man  who  might  defeat  or  elect  him,  or 
at  any  rate,  to  conciliate  that  man  !  More  than  three  years 
had  elapsed  since  a  letter  had  been  received  from  or  written 
to  Burr  by  him,  though  he  was  an  indefatigable  letter 
writer.  Now,  however,  he  favored  his  long-neglected 
friend  with  one  of  his  caressing  epistles.  This  letter  is 
truly  Jefferson ian.  It  is  confidential.  It  is  sent  by  private 
hands,  and  not  by  mail,  lest  in  "this  prying  season,"  as 
Jefferson  called  it,  some  one  besides  Burr  should  read  it. 
Seemingly  frank,  it  is  really  disingenuous.  In  it  there  is 
no  hint  of  a  possible  election  by  the  House,  which  Jefferson 
feared,  nor  does  he  directly  state  that  he  had  been  chosen 
President,  and  Burr  Vice-President.  But  he  makes  a  cal 
culation  from  which  it  appears  that  such  is  the  fact.  As 
suming  it  to  be  so,  he  congratulates  Burr  on  his  election, 
and  expresses  the  belief  that  such  a  result  is  more  gratify 
ing  to  him  than  any  appointment  by  the  Executive.  He 
then  modestly  alludes  to  the  talents,  the  integrity,  the  repu- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  123 

tation  of  some  one,  without  positively  saying  that  Burr  is 
talented,  upright,  and  renowned,  though  the  words  used 
seem  to  imply  all  this.  He  flatteringly  alludes  to  the  loss 
"  we  sustain  of  your  aid  in  our  new  administration,"  intend 
ing  to  convey  the  impression  that  he  proposed  appointing 
Burr  a  member  of  his  cabinet,  in  case  of  the  latter's  non- 
election  to  the  Vice-Presidency,  but  carefully  abstaining 
from  an  explicit  declaration  of  such  purpose.  (Was  the 
assumed  election  of  Burr  really  a  surprise  to  Mr.  Jefferson  ?) 
The  letter  concludes  with  "  affectionate  salutations."  When 
the  character  of  this  letter,  its  date,  the  long  interval  be 
tween  that  date  and  the  date  of  the  preceding  letter,  the 
political  situation,  and  the  peculiar  relations  of  Burr  and 
Jefferson,  resulting  from  the  failure  of  the  electors  to  elect 
a  President,  are  considered,  the  motives  that  prompted  Jef 
ferson  to  write  the  letter  of  December  15th,  are  manifest. 
The  third  letter,  penned  not  long  after,  evidences  greater 
solicitude  than  either  of  the  others  for  the  friendship  of  a 
certain  person  who  was  always  in  the  market,  for  it  was 
then  certain  that  the  election  had  devolved  upon  the  House, 
and  it  had  been  bruited  about  that  Burr  was  willing  to  ac 
cept  an  election  by  the  united  votes  of  Republican  and 
Federal  members. 

After  repeated  ballotings,  Jefferson  was  chosen  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  February  17th,  1801.  Ele 
vated  now  to  the  summit  of  his  ambition,  and  sustained  by 
an  ever-increasing  popularity,  he  no  longer  had  need  of 
Burr's  assistance,  and  addressed  to  him  no  more  adulatory 
letters. 

On  the  evening  of  January  26th,  1804,  Burr  called  upon 
Jefferson.  In  the  course  of  their  conversation,  Burr  men 
tioned  the  growing  distrust  of  himself  by  the  Republican 
party,  and  adverted  to  the  attacks  upon  him  by  the  press. 


124  .NOTES    ON 


He  then  said  that  as  his  term  of  office  as  Vice-President 
would  soon  expire,  he  would  be  somewhat  compensated  for 
this  distrust  and  these  attacks,  if  he  could  return  to  his  home 
with  some  evidence  of  the  President's  undiminished  confi 
dence  in  him.  In  this  connection,  he  recalled  to  Jefferson's 
recollection  his  letter  of  December  15th,  1800,  in  which  he 
mentioned  his  purpose  of  appointing  Burr  to  his  cabinet, 
The  President  agreed  with  Burr  in  condemning  the  journal 
istic  assaults  upon  him,  but  added  that  these  attacks  no  more 
influenced  his  opinion  of  Burr  than  the  passing  wind.  Their 
conversation  then  turned  upon  other  topics.  Xothing  oc 
curred  during  the  interview,  to  indicate  any  change  in  the 
cordial  relations  heretofore  existing  between  the  President 
and  Vice-President.  At  parting,  the  subject  of  the  appoint 
ment  was  left  to  the  consideration  of  the  President.  On 
that  very  evening  Jefferson  wrote  down  in  his  Ana  the  dis 
paraging  sentences  respecting  Burr,  above  quoted. 

This  statement  might  well  be  doubted,  were  its  truth  not 
established  by  the  Ana  themselves.  In  March,  1806,  Burr 
several  times  visited  Jefferson.  The  Ana  mention  three  of 
these  visits.  During  one  of  them,  Burr  again  asked  Jeffer 
son  for  an  appointment.  The  President,  in  reply,  expressed 
his  admiration  for  Burr's  talents  and  his  belief  that  Burr,  if 
called  to  any  place  in  the  government,  would  use  his  fine 
abilities  for  the  public  welfare,  but  declined  to  appoint  him 
upon  the  ground  that  he  had  lost  the  confidence  of  the 
people,  and  that  the  President  had  determined  to  place  in 
office  no  man  who  did  not  possess  that  confidence.  Burr 
subsequently  dined  with  the  President,  and  again  called  to 
take  leave  of  him,  before  quitting  Washington. 

Whether  the  motives  above  ascribed  to  Jefferson  for  writ 
ing  the  three  letters  to  Burr  were,  or  were  not  the  motives  that 
really  prompted  him  to  write  them,  these  letters,  his  Ana, 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  125 

and  his  letter  to  Mr.  Giles,  above  mentioned,  taken  together, 
clearly  reveal  his  insincerity.  It  is  not  a  single  instance  of 
duplicity  which  is  brought  to  light  by  these  writings,  but 
insincerity  extending  through  more  than  a  decade  of  years, 
and  apparently  systematized.  It  would  seem,  too,  that  during 
much  of  this  time,  he  was  practicing  a  double  deception  ;  he 
was  deceiving  Burr  and  deceiving  the  public,  since  Burr's, 
dining  at  the  White  House  and  his  several  calls  on  the 
President,  all  undoubtedly  noised  abroad,  were  well  calcu 
lated  to  diffuse  the  idea  of  their  continued  intimacy. 

The  insincerity  was  attended  with  aggravating  circum 
stances.  Without  solicitation,  Jefferson  offered  his  friendship 
to  Burr,  and  in  three  successive  letters,  he  expressed  his  ad 
miration  and  respect  for  him  ;  he  manifested  much  solicitude 
to  retain  his  friendship.  During  the  interview  of  1804,  he 
talked  and  acted  as  if  his  feelings  towards  Burr  were  un 
changed,  yet  almost  immediately  after  his  guest  had  departed, 
he  wrote  in  his  private  note-book  that  he  had  entertained  a 
distrust  of  that  guest,  and  a  belief  in  his  venality,  long  be 
fore  the  three  letters  to  him  were  written.  After  having 
penned  this  secret  indictment  of  the  man  whose  friendship 
he  had  courted,  and  while  it  still  remained  uncancelled, 
Jefferson  several  times  received  Burr  at  the  Presidential 
mansion,  complimented  him  on  his  talents,  expressed  his 
confidence  that  those  talents,  if  opportunity  were  offered, 
would  be  employed  for  the  good  of  the  country,  entertained 
him  at  dinner,  and  again  permitted  his.  guest  to  depart, 
without  an.  intimation  that  he  had  lost  the  President's 
friendship,  or  that  there  had  been  any  diminution  of  his 
regard.  May  not  the  man  who  can  act  thus,  be  reckoned 
an  adept  in  dissimulation  ? 

Asssociated  with  Jefferson's  insincerity  in  dealing  with 
Burr,  is  his  flattery  of  the  latter,  a  flattery  so  fulsome  that 


126  XOTES    ON 

it  may  almost  be  styled  sycophantic.  He  thrusts  himself 
on  the  attention  of  Burr.  He  writes  one  letter  in  order 
that  he  may  have  an  opportunity  of  recalling  himself  to  the 
memory  of  Burr,  and  of  evidencing  his  esteem  for  him.  In 
another,  he  eulogizes  Burr's  abilities,  integrity,  disposition, 
popularity,  and  assures  him  that  his  election  to  the  Vice- 
Presidency,  leaves  a  chasm  in  his  (Jefferson's)  new  adminis 
tration,  "  which  cannot  be  adequately  filled."  Although 
Burr  made  no  reply  to  either  of  these  letters  (none  is  found 
in  the  published  correspondence  of  either  Burr  or  Jefferson), 
when  the  latter  heard  of  his  alleged  letter  to  Breckenridge, 
he  did  not  wait  for  any  complaint  on  the  part  of  Burr,  but 
hastened  to  write  the  obsequious  letter  of  February,  1801, 
which  is  as  follows  : 

"  DEAR  SIR  : 

"It  was  to  be  expected  that  the  enemy  would  endeavor 
to  sow  tares  between  us,  that  they  might  divide  us  and  our 
friends.  Every  consideration  assures  me  that  you  will  be 
on  your  guard  against  this,  as  I  assure  you,  I  am  strongly. 
I  hear  of  one  stratagem  so  imposing,  and  so  base,  that  it  is 
proper  I  should  notice  it  to  you.  Mr.  Mum  ford,  who  is 
here,  says  he  saw  in  New  York  before  he  left  it,  an  origi 
nal  letter  of  mine  to  Judge  Breckenridge,  in  which  are  sen 
timents  highly  injurious  to  you.  He  knows  my  hand 
writing,  and  did  not  doubt  that  to  be  genuine.  I  enclose 
you  a  copy  taken^  from  the  press  copy,  of  the  only  letter  I 

ever   wrote  to  Judge   B in    my  life;  the.  press  copy 

itself  has  been  shown  to  several  of  our  mutual  friends  here. 
Of  consequence,  the  letter  seen  by  Mr.  Mumford  must  have 
been  a  forgery,  and,  if  it  contains  a  sentiment  unfriendly  or 
disrespectful  to  you,  I  affirm  it  solemnly  to  be  a  forgery,  as 
also,  if  it  varies  from  the  copy  enclosed.  With  the  common 


THOMAS    .JKF  PERSON.  127 

trash  of  slander,  I  should  not  think  of  troubling  you,  but 
the  forgery  of  one's  handwriting  is  too  imposing  to  be  ne 
glected.  A  mutual  knowledge  of  each  other,  furnishes  us 
with  the  best  test  of  the  contrivances  which  will  be  prac 
ticed  by  the  enemies  of  both.  Accept  assurances  of  my 
high  respect  and  esteem." 

No  man  with  true  nobility  of  soul  will  play  the  syco 
phant  to  the  most  excellent  of  his  fellow  creatures,  but 
Jefferson  flatters  and  fawns  upon  one,  whom  he  pronounces 
venal  and  unworthy  of  confidence.  We  have  said  that  the 
dissimulation  of  Jefferson  towards  Burr  was  apparently 
systematized.  We  mention  three  of  the  facts  which  sug 
gested  this  reflection.  1.  Jefferson  knew  Burr,  nearly  thir 
teen  years,  before  he  wrote  in  the  Ana  his  opinion  of  him. 
2.  Burr,  in  referring  to  the  letter  of  December  15th,  did  not 
distinctly  remember  its  date.  Jefferson  took  the  pains  to 
find  the  letter,  to  write  down  its  precise  date  in  his  account 
of  the  interview,  and  to  state  in  that  account,  that  he  in 
tended  to  appoint  Burr  to  a  place  in  the  cabinet,  in  conse 
quence  of  his  party  services  and  political  success  in  New 
York,  reasons,  it  will  be  perceived,  somewhat  different  from 
those  mentioned  in  the  letter.  3.  We  find  in  the  Ana  no 
entry  between  the  memorandum  respecting  Burr's  first  in 
terview,  dated  January  26th,  1804,  and  the  memorandum 
regarding  the  second,  dated  April  15th,  1806,  which  Jeffer 
son  says  was  made  about  a  month  after  the  interview,  and 
which,  be  it  noted,  is  the  last  entry  in  the  Ana. 

Whatever  may  have  been  Jefferson's  opinion  of  Burr 
during  the  earlier  years  of  their  acquaintance,  it  is  certain 
that  he  later  conceived  a  strong  hatred  of  him.  This  hatred, 
concealed  for  a  time,  manifested  itself  conspicuously,  just 
before  and  during  Burr's  trial  for  treason  in  1807.  In 


128  NOTES    ON 

that  trial,  Jefferson  exerted  his  personal  and  official  influ 
ence  to  secure  a  conviction.  He  was  not  content  to  trust 
the  prosecution  to  Mr.  Hay,  the  U.  S.  District  Attorney, 
assisted  by  the  splendid  talents  of  William  Wirt,  but  prac 
tically  assumed  its  control,  and  wrote  letter  after  letter 
containing  directions  as  to  its  management.  So  eager  was 
he,  that  he  diregarded  in  this  matter  official  dignity  and 
propriety ;  he  hunted  up  evidence,  he  named  certain  wit 
nesses  whom  he  wished  to  be  summoned — he  himself  con 
versed  with  a  number  of  persons  in  order  to  ascertain  what 
would  be  their  testimony,  if  placed  upon  the  stand  ;  he 
sought  to  procure  convicting  evidence  by  urging  upon  one 
of  the  accused  a  pardon,  unsought,  and  once  refused  ;  he 
descended  to  petty  details,  such  as  directing  Mr.  Hay,  in 
what  manner  to  examine  a  particular  witness;  he  actually 
requested  that  officer  to  send  him  subpoenas  for  witnesses. 

Having  stooped  from  the  high  office  of  President  to  per 
form  the  functions  of  an  assistant  public  prosecutor,  he 
seems  to  have  descended  still  lower.  Shortly  after  Burr's 
trial,  Dr.  Erick  Boll  man,  the  friend  of  Lafayette,  published 
an  account  of  what  passed  between  himself  and  Jefferson  in 
reference  to  the  case.  In  that  account,  the  Doctor  sets  forth 
that  he  voluntarily  called  upon  the  President,  and  in  the 
presence  of  Mr.  Madison,  made  to  him  a  statement  of  what 
he  knew  respecting  the  transactions  for  which  Burr  was 
soon  to  be  tried  ;  that  Jefferson  soon  after,  wrote  him  a  note 
in  which  the  President  asked  him  to  commit  to  writing  what 
he  had  stated  at  their  recent  interview,  and  gave  his  word  of 
honor  that  the  statement  should  never  be  used  against  the 
Doctor,  or  permitted  to  pass  out  of  Jefferson's  hands;  that 
in  a  letter,  delivered  to  the  President,  he  made  the  state 
ment  desired  ;  that  Mr.  Hay  admitted  in  open  court  that  he 
had  that  letter,  but  refused  to  deliver  it  to  the  foreman  of 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  129 

the  grand  jury,  who  had  asked  for  it;  that  it  further  ap 
peared  in  court,  that  General  Wilkinson  had  seen  in  Hay's 
possession  a  letter  to  the  President  signed  by  Boll  man,  and 
finally,  that  the  doctor  had  still  in  his  possession  Jefferson's 
note  containing  his  request  and  solemn  promise  above- 
mentioned,  a  copy  of  which  note  appears  in  the  published 
account. 

Three  of  the  doctor's  allegations,  to  wit :  that  he  wrote  a 
statement  respecting  Burr's  case,  that  it  was  delivered  to 
Jefferson,  and  was  subsequently  in  the  possession  of  Mr. 
Hay,  are  proven  by  a  letter  from  Jefferson  to  Hay,  trans 
mitting  a  written  statement  of  Dr.  Bollman  touching  the 
case,  (there  could  hardly  have  been  two  such  statements), 
and  authorizing  the  District  Attorney  to  use  it  against  the 
Doctor,  should  he  greatly  prevaricate  in  his  examination 
before  the  grand  jury.  It  is  possible  that  Jefferson  never 
wrote  the  note  which  Bollman  avers  he  did  write,  and  a 
copy  of  which  is  embodied  in  the  doctor's  publication,  but 
it  is  almost  incredible  that  the  Doctor  made  statements  the 
falsity  of  which  could  so  easily  be  shown.  If  the  note  was 
penned  or  dictated  by  Jefferson,  he  undoubtedly  violated 
one  of  the  promises  it  contained,  and  authorized  the  viola 
tion  of  the  other  in  a  certain  contingency. 

Jefferson's  animosity  to  Burr  extended  itself  to  his  coun 
sel,  and  to  the  tribunal  before  which  he  was  tried.  •  He 
criticised  the  rulings  of  the  judges,  pronounced  some  of  them 
contrary  to  law,  and  endeavored  to  inspire  Mr.  Hay  with 
distrust  of  the  court  of  which  he  was  an  officer.  He  in 
formed  Mr.  Giles  that  the  testimony  "  will  satisfy  the  world 
if  not  the  judge  (Marshall)  of  Burr's  guilt,"  and  wickedly 
charged  that  great  jurist  and  pure  man  with  trying  to  shield 
Burr  from  merited  punishment.  He  styled  Burr's  leading 
counsel,  Luther  Martin,  "  an  unprincipled  and  impudent 


130  NOTES    ON 

Federal  bull-dog,"  and  asserted  that  all  Burr's  most  clam 
orous  defenders  were  his  accomplices.  He  asked  Mr. 
Hay  whether  "we  shall  move  to  commit  Luther  Martin  as 
particeps  criminis  with  Burr."  The  letter  containing  this 
suggestion  is  a  painful  revelation  of  Jefferson's  malignity 
towards  Burr,  and  all  who  ventured  to  defend  him.  He 
proposed  to  deprive  a  man  on  trial  for  his  life,  of  the  assist 
ance  of  that  counsel  most  familiar  with  his  case  and  best 
qualified  to  defend  him,  as  well  as  of  the  active  sympathy 
of  a  devoted  friend,  when  friends  were  few;  to  pain^Mr. 
Martin  by  preventing  him  from  defending  his  friend  in  the 
direst  emergency,  to  humiliate  him  by  arresting  him  while 
engaged  in  the  trial,  to  fix  a  stigma  upon  a  renowned  and 
honorable  advocate,  by  thrusting  him  into  jail  upon  the 
charge  of  participating  in  a  great  crime.  Jefferson  cannot 
be  excused  for  suggesting  this  monstrous  proceeding — a 
proceeding  without  precedent  in  the  history  of  criminal 
prosecutions — upon  the  ground  that  he  had  discovered  evi 
dence  sufficient  to  convict  Martin.  He  hints  at  no  such 
evidence.  All  he  hopes  to  do  is  to  fix  upon  Martin  "a 
suspicion  of  treason  "  He  adds:  "at  any  rate  his  testi 
mony  (that  of  a  newly-found  witness)  will  put  down  this 
Federal  bull-dog."  His  professed  reasons  for  proposing 
the  committal  of  Martin  were,  that  he  had  been  informed 
that  it  was  generally  believed  in  Baltimore  that  Burr  was 
planning  an  unlawful  enterprise  of  some  sort,  that  Luther 
Martin  knew  all  about  this  enterprise,  and  that  he  (Jeffer 
son)  had  received  a  letter  stating  that  one  Graybell  could 
possibly  prove  this  knowledge.  It  will  be  perceived,  that 
he  does  not  claim  to  have  information  that  Mr.  Martin  had 
aided  or  abetted  the  "conspiracy"  for  which  Burr  was  on 
trial,  or  had  any  knowledge  of  it,  or  that  he  had  entered  into 
any  illegal  combination  whatever,  and  that  the  suggestion  of 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  131 

a  committal  was  made  before  it  had  been  ascertained  by  actual 
examination  or  otherwise,  that  Graybell  could  testify  to  the 
commission  of  any  improper  act  by  Martin.  For  no  better 
reasons  than  these  Jefferson  was  willing,  apparently,  to  in 
flict  the  cruel  wrongs  above  mentioned  upon  two  gentlemen, 
his  peers,  one  of  whom  had  not  only  been  a  Senator  and 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  but  had  received  the 
same  number  of  electoral  votes  for  the  Presidency  as  Jeffer 
son  himself;  the  other  of  whom  had  sat  in  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  Federal  Constitution,  and,  at  the  time  of 
the  contemplated  outrage,  was  one  of  the  most  eminent 
lawyers  of  the  country. 

Burr's  acquittal  on  the  charge  of  treason  did  not  appease, 
but  apparently  augmented  Jefferson's  wrath.  He  indirectly 
charged  somebody  (name  suppressed  in  letter)  with  endeav 
oring  to  clear  Burr,  and  "  keep  the  evidence  from  the  world." 
In  order  to  prevent  the  latter  calamnity,  he  absurdly  and 
tyranically  directs  Mr.  Hay  not  to  pay  the  witnesses,  or 
permit  them  to  depart,  until  their  testimony  delivered  at 
the  trial  is  reduced  to  writing.  He  further  directs  Mr. 
Hay  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the  record  of  the  trial  and  of  the 
judge's  opinion,  without  saying  for  what,  and  to  send  them, 
with  the  evidence,  all  duly  certified,  to  him  at  Washington. 
He  orders  the  trial  of  Burr  for  misdemeanor.  Forgetting 
or  disregarding  the  fifth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
he  desires  Mr.  Hay  to  consider  whether  Burr  cannot  be 
again  tried  in  Ohio  for  treason,  after  the  misdemeanor  trial 
is  ended  either  by  conviction  or  acquittal.  Burr's  case  had 
twice  been  before  a  grand  jury  in  Kentucky,  and  had  each 
time  been  dismissed  ;  he  had  been  tried  for  treason  at  Rich 
mond,  and  acquitted.  Jefferson  had  already  directed  his 
prosecution  for  misdemeanor,  and  now  hopes  that  he  may 
be  imprisoned  for  this  offence,  so  that  "  we"  may  have  time 


332  NOTES    OX 

to  decide  whether  his  former  friend  shall  again  be  placed  in 
jeopardy  of  his  life,  and  exposed  to  an  infamous  death. 
Well  might  General  Jackson  denounce  Jefferson  as  a  "  per 
secutor  "  of  Burr,  and  Luther  Martin  declare  that  Jefferson 
hunted  Burr,  "  with  a  bloodhound's  keen  and  savage  thirst 
for  blood." 

Jefferson's  indignation  at  Burr's  acquittal  is  further  shown 
by  his  indirect  but  bitter  assaults   upon   Judge   Marshall. 
Writing  to  Mr.  Hay,  he  says:  "This  criminal  is  preserved 
to  become  the  rallying  point  of  all  the  disaffected  and  worth 
less  of  the  United  States."     The  following  from  one  of  his 
letters  to  General  Wilkinson,  one  would  suppose  to  be  the 
production  of  a  bedlamite,  rather  than  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States :  "  The  scenes  which   have  been  acted  at 
Richmond  are  such  as  have  never  before  been  exhibited  in 
any  country,  where  all  regard  to  public  character  has  not 
yet  been  thrown  off.     They  are  equivalent  to  a  proclama 
tion  of  impunity  to  every  traitorous  combination    which 
may  be  formed  to  destroy  the  Union."     With  that  vague 
ness  of  expression  that  he  could  so  well  employ,  he  suggests 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  "which  keeping  judges 
independent  of  the  Executive,  will  not  leave  them  so  of  the 
nation."     In  this,  as  in  other  cases,  he  vents  his  indignation 
by  covert  attacks  in  letters  to  friends.     His  parting  shot  at 
the  Judge  was  sending  to  Congress  a  copy  of  the  proceedings, 
the  evidence  and  the  Judge's  charge  at  the  trial  of  Burr. 

Although  Jefferson  strove  to  obtain  a  conviction  of  Burr 
for  the  crime  of  treason,  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  really 
believed  him  guilty.  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Giles  he  sets  forth 
the  transactions  of  Burr,  upon  which  he  bases  the  charge  of 
treason.  These  are  :  1.  "  The  enlistment  of  men  in  a  regu 
lar  way.  2.  The  regular  mounting  of  guard  round  Blenner- 
hasset's  Island,  when  they  discovered  Governor  Tiffin's  men 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  133 

to  be  on  them.  3.  The  rendezvous  of  Burr  with  his  men 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Cumberland.  4.  His  letter  to  the  acting 
Governor  of  Mississippi  holding  up  the  prospect  of  civil 
war.  5.  His  capitulation  regularly  signed  with  the  aids  of 
the  Governor,  as  between  two  independent  hostile  com 
manders." 

It  is  hard  to  understand  how  a  lawyer  or  even  an  intelli 
gent  and  unprejudiced  layman,  who  had  read  the  Constitu 
tion,  could  decide  that  those  transactions  amounted  to 
treason.  Further,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bowdoin,  then  our 
Minister  at  Madrid,  Jefferson  says:  "Although  at  first  he 
(Burr)  proposed  a  separation  of  the  Western  country,  and  on 
that  ground  received  encouragement  from  Yrujo,  according 
to  the  usual  spirit  of  his  Government  toward  us,  yet  he 
very  early  saw  that  the  fidelity  of  the  Western  country  was 
not  to  be  shaken,  and  turned  himself  wholly  toiuards  Mexico." 
Mr.  Schmucker,  in  his  impartial  biography  of  Jefferson, 
expresses  the  opinion  that  Jefferson's  non-belief  in  Burr's 
guilt  is  evident  from  this  letter. 

Notwithstanding  these  letters,  and  other  facts  which  may 
be  advanced  in  support  of  the  theory  deduced  from  them, 
it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  Jefferson,  insincere  and  un- 
scruplous  as  he  may  have  been,  was  base  enough  to  procure 
the  execution  of  a  man  of  whose  innocence  he  was  persuaded. 
It  is  more  probable  that  he  endeavored  to  have  Burr  con 
victed,  regardless  of  his  guilt  or  innocence,  with  the  inten 
tion  of  pardoning  him.  By  his  conviction  for  treason  and 
his  pardon,  Jefferson  could  humiliate  and  ruin  one  who,  he 
supposed,  had  intrigued  to  supplant  him  in  his  first  presi 
dential  contest,  and  at  the  same  time,  blazon  his  own  mag 
nanimity  to  the  world,  that  is  the  people,  whose  favor  he 
courted  with  all  the  obsequiousness  of  a  petty  shop-keeper. 


134  NOTES    ON 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

JEFFERSON'S  SLANDERS  OF  HAMILTON. 

SOME  one  has  said  of  Jefferson  :  "  He  did  not  hesitate  to 
attribute  to  them  (his  political  opponents)  purposes  which 
no  honest  mind  could  form,  and  no  rational  mind  entertain." 
This,  if  true,  is  not  very  flattering  to  the  judgment  of  him 
whom  it  concerns,  and  still  less  so  to  his  heart.  A  brief 
examination  of  some  of  the  purposes  and  practices  which 
Jefferson  attributed  to  Hamilton,  will  enable  us  to  form  an 
estimate  of  the  accuracy  of  the  foregoing  statement  respect 
ing  him. 

1.  He  alleged  that  Hamilton  favored  his  friends  and 
adherents,  by  communicating  to  them  at  opportune  times 
the  financial  secrets  of  the  Treasury.  The  charge  is  .made 
in  two  letters  to  Washington,  one  dated  May  23d,  1792, 
the  other,  September  9th,  1 792.  In  this,  as  in  other  similar 
cases,  he  offered  no  proofs  of  the  truth  of  his  injurious  al 
legations  against  a  brother  cabinet  officer.  The  fact  that 
he  brought  forward  no  evidence  in  support  of  the  charge, 
evinces  his  inability  to  do  so,  for  he  certainly  lacked  not  the 
inclination.  But  while  there  is  nothing  to  establish  its 
truth,  there  are  strong  reasons  for  believing  it  untrue. 
While  Hamilton  was  Washington's  private  secretary,  he 
contracted  an  intimacy  with  Henry  Lee,  then  at  the  head 
quarters  of  the  army.  This  intimacy  ripened  into  friend 
ship.  Towards  the  close  of  1789,  while  Hamilton  was 
preparing  his  report  on  the  public  credit,  Colonel  Lee 
addressed  him  a  letter,  containing  certain  inquiries  respect- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  135 

ing  the  fiscal  measures  which  he  proposed  recommending  to 
Congress.  The  information,  which  the  colonel  wished  thus 
to  elicit,  he  expected  to  use  for  his  private  pecuniary  benefit. 
There  was  probably  no  one,  whom  the  Secretary  would  have 
more  willingly  obliged  than  his  quondam  associate  in  arms. 
But  mark  his  reply,  found  in  Vol.  V.,  p.  446,  of  his  works  : 
"My  dear  Sir;  I  received  your  letter  of  the  16th  inst.  I 
am  sure  you  are  sincere  when  you  say  that  you  would  not  sub 
ject  me  to  an  impropriety,  nor  do  I  know  that  there  would  be 
any  in  answering  your  queries.  But  you  remember  the  saying 
about  Caesar's  wife.  I  think  the  spirit  of  it  applicable  to 
every  one,  concerned  in  the  administration  of  the  finances  of 
the  country ;  with  respect  to  the  conduct  of  such  men,  sus 
picion  is  ever  eagle-eyed,  and  the  most  innocent  things  may 
be  misrepresented.  Be  assured  of  the  affectionate  friendship 
of  yours,"  etc.  This  letter  does  not  indeed  prove  that 
Hamilton  never  revealed  treasury  secrets  to  any  one,  but  it 
raises  the  strongest  presumption  of  his  innocence.  If  he 
would  not  reveal  them  to  one  of  his  most  intimate  friends, 
in  whose  discretion  he  could  certainly  confide,  and  when  by 
so  doing  he  could  strengthen  his  own  Congressional  influ 
ence,  it  may  be  safely  inferred,  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
to  the  contrary,  that  he  did  not  impart  those  secrets  to  others. 
As  Jefferson,  though  willing  enough,  adduced  no  testimony 
in  support  of  his  accusation,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that 
his  charge  against  the  Secretary  is  false,  and  that  the  accuser 
had  no  reason  to  believe  it  true. 

2.  He  charged  that  Hamilton  wished  the  public  debt 
"never  to  be  paid,  but  always  to  be  a  thing  wherewith  to 
corrupt  and  manage  the  legislature."  Letter  of  Jefferson 
to  Washington  above  mentioned,  dated  September  9th, 
1792,  Sparks  Writings  of  Washington,  Vol.  10,  Appendix. 
The  evidence  that  this  allegation  is  entirely  unfounded, 


13f)  NOTES    ON 

and  that  Jefferson  knew  it  to  be  so  when  he  penned  it,  is  as 
follows:  On  page  41,  of  Hamilton's  Report  on  Public 
Credit,  dated  January  9th,  1790,  is  the  following:  "  Per 
suaded  as  the  Secretary  is,  that  the  proper  funding  of  the 
present  debt  will  render  it  a  public  blessing,  yet  he  is  so  far 
from  acceding  to  the  position  in  the  latitude  in  which  it 
i.s  sometimes  laid  down,  that  public  debts  are  public  bless 
ings,  a  position  inviting  to  prodigality,  and  liable  to  dan 
gerous  abuse,  that  he  ardently  wishes  to  see  it  incorporated 
as  a  fundamental  maxim  in  the  system  of  public  credit  of  the 
United  States,  that  the  creation  of  debt  should  always  be  ac 
companied  with  the  means  of  its  extinguishment.  This  he 
regards  as  the  true  secret  of  rendering  public  credit  immor 
tal."  He  then  proposes  that  certain  revenues  "shall  be 
appropriated  to  continue  so  vested  until  the  whole  debt  shall 
be  discharged"  In  Hamilton's  Report  on  Estimates,  he 
urges  that  a  surplus  of  one  million  then  in  the  treasury, 
should  be  applied  to  the  discharge  of  the  public  debt. 
In  his  Report  on  Manufactures,  bearing  date  December 
5th,  1791,  he  says:  "  And  as  the  vicissitudes  of  nations 
beget  a  perpetual  tendency  to  the  accumulation  of  debt, 
there  ought  to  be,  in  every  government,  a  perpetual, 
anxious,  and  unceasing  effort  to  reduce  that  which  at  any 
time  exists  as  fast  as  practicable  consistently  with  integrity, 
and  good  faith."  All  these  Reports  were  made  and  pub 
lished  long  anterior  to  the  date  of  the  letter  containing  the 
charge;  the  first  of  them,  two  years  and  eight  months 
before  that  date.  This  one  was  commented  upon  throughout 
the  country,  and  as  Jefferson  reached  home,  on  his  return 
from  France  about  the  close  of  1789,  it  may  be  safely  as 
sumed  that  prior  to  September,  1792,  he  had  read  the  Report 
on  Public  Credit,  and  knew  that  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Hamilton's  financial  system  was  that  the  ex- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  137 

tinguishment  of  a  public  debt  should  be  provided  for  at  the 
time  of  its  contraction.  If  this  report  escaped  his  notice, 
it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  he  was  familiar  with  the 
Report  of  December,  1791,  made  when  he  was  in  the  cabi 
net  with  Hamilton,  and  was  impelled  by  both  public  and 
personal  motives,  to  scan  everything  penned  by  the  latter. 
Should  this  report,  also,  by  any  possibility,  have  been  over 
looked,  Jefferson,  as  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  would  neces 
sarily  learn  the  general  principles  upon  which  the  Treasury 
Department  was  conducted.  The  proposition  that  Hamil 
ton  favored  the  payment  of  the  public  indebtedness  is 
proven  by  official  documents  ;  the  proposition  that  Jefferson 
wilfully  misrepresented  him  on  this  point,  is  sustained  by 
evidence,  that  will  force  conviction  upon  every  one  who  ex 
amines  it. 

3.  In  immediate  connection  with  the  charge  that  has 
just  been  considered,  is  one  of  a  much  more  serious  nature, 
namely,  that  Hamilton  wished  the  Public  Debt  "always  to 
be  a  thing  wherewith  to  corrupt  and  manage  the  legislature" 
He  elsewhere  declares  that  Hamilton's  financial  system  was 
u  A  machine  for  the  corruption  of  the  Legislature."  He 
made  no  attempt  to  show  that  any  one  had  been  bribed  or 
corrupted ;  he  set  forth  no  specifications.  On  February 
28th,  1793,  Mr.  Giles,  a  friend  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  introduced 
into  the  House  of  Representatives  nine  resolutions  touching 
Hamilton's  alleged  mismanagement  of  the  Treasury  Depart 
ment.  Two  of  them  were  abandoned — one  of  them  was 
never  voted  on,  and  the  remaining  six  were  rejected  by  an 
average  vote  of  about  four  to  one.  The  inquiry  set  on  foot 
by  the  resolutions,  revealed  Hamilton's  integrity,  and  nice 
sense  of  honor.  His  enemies  were  greatly  chagrined,  and 
asserted  that  the  resolutions  had  failed  through  the  influ 
ence  of  members,  interested  in  sustaining  the  Secretary. 

10 


138  NOTES    ON 

The  press  continued  its  assaults  upon  him.  At  the  next  session 
of  Congress,  Hamilton  demanded  an  investigation  of  the 
affairs  of  the  Treasury.  Resolutions  in  the  nature  of  charges 
were  preferred  against  him  in  both  Houses.  In  the  Senate, 
they  were  referred  to  a  committee,  and  no  further  action  is 
recorded.  Two-thirds  of  the  committee  to  which  they  were 
referred  in  the  House,  were  Republicans.  After  a  laborious 
investigation  extending  through  a  period  of  two  months, 
this  committee,  on  May  22d,  1794,  made  a  report  entirely 
exculpating  Hamilton,  which  was  adopted  without  a  dis 
senting  voice.  This  report,  not  only  established  the  spot 
less  purity  of  the  Secretary,  but  bore  testimony  to  his  scru 
pulous  obedience  to  the  laws,  as  well  as  to  his  vigilance  in 
guarding  the  public  interests.  Thus  was  Hamilton  twice 
vindicated. 

When  it  is  considered  that  Jefferson   made  this  charge 

?5 

against  Hamilton  while  the  latter  was  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  the  former  was  Secretary  of  State  ;  that  the 
charge  was  made  to  the  President,  who  was  an  intimate 
friend  of  Hamilton  ;  that  the  reputation  of  Hamilton  was 
unsullied,  that  the  charges  assailed  the  integrity  of  the  legis 
lature,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Secretary;  that  the  accusation 
asserted  not  one  act  only,  but  a  system  of  corruption;  that 
the  accaser  offered  not  a  scintilla  of  proof  in  support  of  his 
terrible  allegation,  and  that  it  was  utterly  false,  it  is  scarcely 
too  much  to  say,  that  a  more  shameful  assault  upon  char 
acter  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  chronicles  of  slander. 

4.  In  the  letter,  which  contains  the  two  preceding  calum 
nies,  Jefferson  declared  that  Hamilton's  career  was  "  A  tissue 
of  machinations  against  the  liberty  of  a  country  that  had 
received  and  fed  him."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  that 
there  was  no  attempt  to  sustain  this  sweeping  accusation  bv 
any  testimony,  direct  or  circumstantial.  The  person  who 


THOMAS    JEFFEKSOX.  139 

made  it,  seems  rarely  to  have  thought  it  necessary  to  estab 
lish  the  truth  of  any  defamatory  statement  respecting  a 
political  opponent,  which  he  choose  to  put  forth.  He  had 
repeatedly  hinted,  and  indirectly  preferred  this  charge,  but 
had  not  before  stated  it  clearly,  or  in  such  offensive  language. 
Enough  has  been  said  in  the  Note  on  Jefferson's  Apprehen 
sions  of  a  Monarchy,  to  show  that  it  is  unfounded.  Even 
if  nothing  in  disproof,  could  be  brought  forward,  it  must 
be  regarded  as  false,  for  he,  who  speaks  or  writes  what  in 
juriously  affects  the  character,  or  the  interests  of  another, 
and  fails  to  prove  the  truth  of  his  declaration,  is  held,  both 
in  law  and  in  reason,  to  have  uttered  what  is  untrue. 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  stated  in  refutation  of  this  ac 
cusation,  two  facts  may  be  adduced.  1 .  In  the  Constitutional 
Convention  Hamilton  moved  that  the  President  be  ineli 
gible  after  two  successive  terms.  See  Hamilton's  History 
of  the  Republic,  vol.  iv,  chap.  72  and  note.  2.  In  the  Ana, 
under  date  of  August  13th,  1791,  Jefferson  records  that 
Hamilton,  in  a  private  conversation  with  him,  condemned  par 
ticularly  Adam's  "  Davila,"  and,  among  other  things,  said  : 
"Since  we  have  undertaken  the  experiment,  (of  the  present 
government)  I  am  for  giving  it  a  fair  course,  whatever  my 
expectations  may  be.  At  present,  success  seems  more  prob 
able  tfian  it  had  done  heretofore That  mind  must 

be  really  depraved,  which  would  not  prefer  the  equality  of 
political  rights,  which  is  the  foundation  of  pure  Republican 
ism,  if  it  can  be  obtained  consistently  with  order.  There 
fore,  whoever  by  his  writings  disturbs  the  present  order  of 
things  is  really  blamable,  however  pure  his  intentions  may 
be."  Here  we  have  from  Jefferson's  own  pen,  strong  if 
not  sufficient  testimony  to  disprove  his  allegation,  for  it  is 
difficult,  almost  impossible,  to  believe  that  a  man  who  spoke 
the  words  taken  from  the  Ana,  and  whose  sincerity  is  ad- 


140  NOTES    ON 

mitted  by  Jefferson  himself,  could  be  engaged  in  continual 
intrigues  against  the  liberties  of  his  country. 

5.  One  more  charge  against  Hamilton  will  be  noticed. 
It  is,  that  he  not  only  favored  a  monarchy,  but  that  he 
wished  "A  monarchy  bottomed  on  corruption"  This  is 
assuredly  a  very  remarkable  accusation,  but  it  is  hardly 
more  so  than  the  evidence  which  Jefferson  submits  for  the 
purpose  of  sustaining  it.  This  evidence,  found  in  the 
prefix  to  the  Ana,  is  as  follows :  "  But  Hamilton  was  not 
only  a  monarchist,  but  for  a  monarchy  bottomed  on  corrup 
tion.  In  proof  of  this,  I  will  relate  an  anecdote,  for  the 
truth  of  which  I  attest  the  God  who  made  me.  Before  the 
President  set  out  on  his  Southern  tour  in  April,  1791,  he 
addressed  a  letter  from  Mount  Yernon  to  the  Secretaries  of 
State,  Treasury,  and  War,  desiring  that  if  any  serious  and 
important  cases  should  arise  during  his  absence,  they  would 
consult,  and  act  on  them.  And  he  requested  that  the  Vice 
President  should  also  be  consulted.  This  was  the  only 
occasion,  in  which  that  officer  was  ever  requested  to  take 
part  in  a  Cabinet  question. 

"Some  occasion  for  consultation  having  arisen,  I  invited 
those  gentlemen  to  dine  with  me,  in  order  to  confer  on  the 
subject.  After  the  cloth  was  removed,  and  our  question 
argued  and  dismissed,  conversation  began  on  other  matters, 
and  by  some  circumstance  was  led  to  the  British  Constitu 
tion,  on  which  Mr.  Adams  observed,  '  Purge  that  Constitu. 
tion  of  its  corruption,  and  give  to  its  popular  branch 
equality  of  representation,  and  it  would  be  the  most  perfect 
Constitution  ever  devised  by  the  wit  of  man.7  Hamilton 
paused,  and  said,  '  Purge  it  of  its  corruption,  and  give  to 
its  popular  branch  equality  of  representation,  and  it  would 
become  an  impracticable  government;  as  it  stands  at  present, 
with  all  its  supposed  defects,  it  is  the  most  perfect  govern- 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  141 

ment  that  ever  existed/  And  this  was  assuredly  the  exact  line, 
which  separated  the  political  creeds  of  these  two  gentlemen. 
The  one  was  for  two  hereditary  branches,  and  an  honest, 
elective  one ;  the  other  for  an  hereditary  king,  with  a  House 
of  Lords  and  Commons,  corrupted  to  his  will,  and  standing 
between  him  and  the  people.  Hamilton'  was,  indeed,  a 
singular  character.  Of  acute  understanding,  disinterested, 
honest,  and  honorable  in  all  private  transactions,  amiable 
in  society,  and  duly  valuing  virtue  in  private  life,  yet  so 
bewitched  and  perverted  by  the  British  example,  as  to  be 
under  thorough  conviction  that  corruption  was  essential  to 
the  government  of  a  nation." 

Let  this  singular  method  of  proving  a  statement  be  con 
sidered,  for  a  moment.  One  gentleman  imputes  to  another 
a  certain  theory  as  to  government,  but  offers  no  proof  in 
support  of  his  imputation.  He  several  times  repeats  it,  and 
on  each  occasion,  without  evidence.  Many  years  after,  when 
the  accused  party  had  long  been  sleeping  in  his  grave,  the 
imputer,  in  order  to  sustain  his  charge,  makes  an  entry  in 
his  diary.  This  entry  contains  what  purports  to  be  an  ac 
count  of  an  incident,  that  happened  twenty-seven  years  be 
fore,  to  the  accuracy  of  which  the  narrator  makes  the  most 
solemn  attestation  ;  and  also  contains  some  reflections  sug 
gested  by  the  incident  related.  The  diary  is  not  to  be 
published  during  the  life  of  its  author.  From  the  entry, 
it  appears  that  an  honorable  man,  "  of  acute  understand 
ing,"  was  "  so  bewitched  and  perverted  "  by  his  admiration 
of  the  British  Constitution,  as  to  become  thoroughly  con 
vinced  "  that  corruption  is  essential  to  the  government  of  a 
nation;"  that  a  statesman,  disinterested  and  honest  in  pri 
vate  life,  favored  "  a  House  of  Lords  and  Commons  cor 
rupted  to  his  will,  and  standing  between  him  and  the 
people;"  that  a  gentleman  of  more  than  ordinary  intelli- 


142  NOTES   OX 

gence,  was  stupid  enough  to  avow,  before  persons,  of  whose 
friendship  he  was  not  assured,  his  preference  of  dishonesty 
to  honesty  in  the  administration  of  government.  Is  this 
senility?  Perhaps  it  is;  if  so,  it  is  a  senility  which  makes 
no  strong  appeal  to  our  sympathy ;  it  is  senility,  engaged 
in  a  blundering  attempt  to  transmit  to  posterity,  a  foolish 
calumny  upon  a  pure  and  noble  man,  invented  and  propa 
gated  by  its  author,  while  in  the  full  possession  of  mental 
vigor.  The  incident  related  by  Jefferson,  and  its  circum 
stances,  deserve  and  will  reward  some  attention. 

Though  this  incident  is  remarkable  in  more  than  one 
respect,  and  apparently  better  worth  remembering  than 
many  things  set  down  in  the  Ana,  there  is  no  mention  of 
it  therein,  and  no  record  of  it  was  made  for  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  When,  in  1792,  and  at  other  times, 
Jefferson  wrote  to  Washington  and  others  that  Hamilton 
favored  a  monarchy,  and  the  latter  attempted  to  repel  the 
charge,  this  incident,  the  occurrence  of  which  could  have 
been  proved  by  Adams,  Knox,  and  Randolph,  would  prob 
ably  have  silenced  him.  When  Jefferson  imputed  to  Ham 
ilton  the  purpose  of  using  the  public  debt,  to  corrupt  the 
Legislature,  he  might  have  imparted  to  this  grave  imputa 
tion  upon  the  Secretary  and  upon  Congress  a  certain  plau 
sibility,  by  citing  the  explicit  declaration  of  the  Secretary. 
When  Adams  denied  that  he  desired  a  king,  Lords,  and 
Commons,  and  challenged  Jefferson  to  mention  some  act  or 
word  that  evidenced  such  a  desire,  reference  could  have 
been  triumphantly  made  to  the  consultation  dinner,  which 
they  had  eaten  together,  a  short  time  before.  But  the  inci 
dent  was  recalled  in  none  of  these  cases — not  even  in  the 
last,  where  the  temptation  to  do  so  must  have  been  strong, 
and  the  task  was  easy.  Armed  with  this  double  confession 
of  political  faith,  the  champion  of  Republicanism  could 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  143 

have  overwhelmed  the  two  leading  Federalists  of  his  time. 
But,  for  some  reason,  he  used  this  effective  weapon  in  none 
of  his  contests. 

Perhaps  he  did  not  avail  himself  of  this  "anecdote,"  in 
his  party  struggles,  because  the  facts  stated  occurred  at 
his  own  table;  this  delicacy  cannot,  however,  account  for 
his  long  delay  in  recording  them.  But  why  did  he  finally 
reduce  them  to  writing?  We  may  suppose  that  some  such 
considerations  as  these  moved  him  :  "  I  have  charged  Ham 
ilton  and  Adams  with  the  design,  and  the  effort  to  establish 
a  Monarchy  in  this  country.  Both  have  strenuously  con 
tradicted  the  charge.  I  have  offered  no  proof  of  my  alle 
gations.  I  have  preferred  a  more  serious  accusation  against 
Hamilton,  but  Congress  has  pronounced  him  pure  in  his 
high  office.  I  shall  soon  pass  away.  The  idea,  that  pos 
terity  may  deem  me  capable  of  making  false  accusations 
against  two  of  my  most  worthy  and  prominent  contempo 
raries,  is  distressing  to  me.  A  circumstantial  account  of 
this  consultation  dinner  will  show  to  those  who  come  after 
me,  that  my  course  towards  these  eminent  men  was  not  en 
tirely  without  cause. " 

The  time,  at  which  the  incident  is  stated  to  have  occurred, 
though  not  precisely  given,  was  scarcely  three  months  before 
the  date  of  Jefferson's  letter  to  Adams,  in  which  mention 
is  made  of  their  difference  as  to  the  best  form  of  govern 
ment.  Was  this  mention  due  to  Jefferson's  recollection  of 
Adams'  post-prandial  declaration  ?  The  latter,  in  his  reply, 
makes  no  attempt  to  explain  or  qualify  that  declaration,  as 
he  would  almost  certainly  have  done,  had  he  remembered 
it.  Three  facts  are  here  to  be  noted  :  1.  This  reply,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  the  mails,  would  reach  Jefferson  but 
a  few  days  prior  to  August  13th,  1791,  the  date  of  the 
Ana  entry,  which  narrates  Hamilton's  condemnation  of 


144  NOTES    OX 

Adams'  writings,  particularly  "Davila."  2.  This  entry 
is  the  first  in  the  Ana.  3.  No  other  entry  is  made  until  the 
ensuing  December.  From  the  whole  language  of  the  entry, 
most  of  which  is  quoted  above,  page  139,  and  especially 
from  its  conclusion,  one  might  infer  that  there  is  some  rela 
tion  existing  between  it,  and  the  account  of  the  after-dinner 
incident.  Its  conclusion  is  as  follows:  "This  is  the  sub 
stance  of  a  declaration,  made  in  much  more  lengthy  terms, 
and  which  seemed  to  be  more  formal  than  usual  for  a  pri 
vate  conversation  between  two,  and  as  if  intended  to  qualify 
some  less  guarded  expression,  which  had  been  dropped  on 
former  occasions.  The  inference  would  be  strengthened 
by  the  fact,  that  this  second  declaration  of  Hamilton  re 
specting  governmental  systems  was  made,  as  appears  from 
a  comparison  of  Jefferson's  dates,  only  a  few  months  after 
the  first  one  was  made.  The  account  of  the  second  seems  to 
have  been  written  in  August,  1 791  ;  the  narrative  of  the  first, 
in  February,  1818.  Jefferson  was,  apparently,  quite  aware 
that  posterity  would  deem  it  very  extraordinary,  that  a  man 
of  Hamilton's  character  and  understanding  favored  a 
"  monarchy  bottomed  on  corruption,"  but,  at  the  same  time, 
was  most  anxious  to  have  it  believed  that  such  was  the  case, 
for  he  endeavors  to  account  for  the  anomaly,  and  appeals 
to  his  Creator  for  the  truth  of  his  statements.  That  he  was 
also  unusually  solicitous  for  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of 
his  record  of  Hamilton's  second  declaration  is  clear,  for  he 
added  at  its  close  :  "  Thomas  Jefferson  has  committed  it  to 
writing  in  the  moment  of  A.  Hamilton's  leaving  the  room." 
The  incident  at  the  consultation  dinner  so  carefully  re 
corded,  and  so  solemnly  attested  by  Jefferson,  did  not  appar 
ently  impress  Mr.  Adams  very  strongly,  as  no  mention  of  it 
is  found  in  his  writings, — indeed,  he  appears  to  have  forgotten 
it  in  less  than  three  months,  although  it  is  stated  that  it  hap- 


THOMAS    JEFFEESOX.  145 

pened  at  the  only  Cabinet  consultation  which  he  attended 
while  Vice-President.  Mr.  J.  C.  Hamilton,  in  his  History 
of  the  Republic,  avers  that  the  incident  could  not  possibly 
have  occurred  at  the  time  stated,  because  at  that  period,  in 
consequence  of  Cabinet  disputes  regarding  the  Bank  ques 
tion,  the  only  intercourse  between  Hamilton  and  Jefferson 
was  that  of  an  official  character,  which  was  conducted  in 
writing,  and  in  the  third  person,  and  ridicules  the  idea  that 
Hamilton  made  the  declaration  attributed  to  him.  The 
narrator  himself  admits  that  his  account  of  the  incident 
was  penned  twenty-seven  years  after  its  alleged  occurrence, 
and  when  he  was  seventy-five  years  old.  Is  it  the  dream 
of  a  dotard,  or  something  worse  ? 


146  NOTES   ON 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

JEFFERSON  AND  WASHINGTON. 

THE  depravity  of  human  nature  is  strikingly  illustrated 
by  the  fact  that  the  great  and  good  man,  to  whom  under 
Providence,  this  prosperous  land  is  most  indebted  for  the 
manifold  blessings  of  independence,  was,  while  yet  alive, 
defamed  by  some  of  his  own  fellow-citizens.  This  is 
scarcely  surprising,  for  the  master-poet  has  said  "  Virtue 
itself  'scapes  not  calumnious  strokes."  But  it  is  both  as 
tonishing  and  painful  to  discover  among  his  detractors, 
the  distinguished  person  who  has  occupied  in  popular 
affection  the  place  next  to  that  held  by  him,  who  is  "  first 
in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen  ;  "  it  is  astonishing  to  learn 
that  Thomas  Jefferson  did  not  discourage,  but  possibly 
encouraged  the  calumniation  of  George  Washington. 

Jefferson's  slighting  allusions  to  this  illustrious  man 
began  while  he  was  Washington's  Secretary  of  State. 
August  1 1th,  1793,  he  wrote  Mr.  Madison,  "  The  President 
always  acquiesces  in  the  majority," — that  is,  of  the  Cabinet. 
By  thus  writing,  he  not  only  endeavored  to  cast  a  slur  on 
his  chief,  the  President,  but  violated  official  propriety.  In  a 
letter  to  the  same  gentleman,  dated  December  28th,  1794,  he 
wrote:  "The  denunciation  (by  Washington)  of  the  Demo 
cratic  societies  is  one  of  the  extraordinary  acts  of  boldness,  of 
which  we  have  seen  so  many  from  the  faction  of  mono- 
crats."  He  styles  the  denunciation  "  an  attack  on  the  free 
dom  of  discussion,  the  freedom  of  writing,  printing,  and 
publishing  ;"  says  that  the  President  has  taken  advantage 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  147 

of  the  misbehavior  of  certain  persons  "  to  slander  the  friends 
of  popular  rights/7 — that  the  President's  proposition  to  re 
strain  the  licentiousness  of  these  societies  is  "an  abstract  at 
tempt  (whatever  that  is)  on  the  natural  and  constitutional 
rights"  of  these  friends,  and  "an  inexcusable  aggression." 
In  the  same  letter,  referring  to  the  then  recent  suppression  of 
the  Whiskey  Insurrection,  he  alleges  that  the  President  in 
effecting  that  suppression,  was  guilty  of  "  arming  one  part 
of  the  society  against  another," — "  of  declaring  a  civil 
war,  the  moment  before  the  meeting  of  that  body,  which 
has  the  sole  right  of  declaring  war,"  "of  adding  a  million 
to  the  public  debt ;"  he  ridicules  that  part  of  the  President's 
speech  in  which  the  reasons  for  calling  out  the  troops  are 
stated,  and  alludes  to  what  he  is  pleased  to  term  "  the  fables  in 
the  speech."  In  regard  to  the  same  subject,  he  writes  to  Mann 
Page,  May  27th,  1795,  "An  insurrection  was  announced, 
and  proclaimed, and  armed  against,  and  marched  against,  but 
none  could  be  found."  He  concludes  that  the  enforcement 
of  the  excise  law  by  calling  out  the  militia,  will  "  make 
it  the  instrument  of  dismembering  the  Union,  and  setting 
us  all  afloat,  to  choose  what  part  of  it  we  will  adhere  to." 

In  one  letter,  he  states  that  Washington  was  not  sen 
sible  of  the  designs  of  his  party;  in  another,  to  Madison, 
he  describes  him  as  "  enveloped  in  the  rags  of  royalty." 
Referring  to  Washington's  approval  of  the  Jay  treaty, 
Jefferson  says,  "  I  wish  that  his  honesty  and  his  political 
errors  may  not  furnish  a  second  occasion  to  exclaim, 
1  Curse  on  his  virtues,  they  have  undone  the  country.'  ' 
In  his  letter  to  Aaron  Burr,  of  June  17th,  1797,  we  find  him 
lamenting  Washington's  "  ungrateful  predilection  in  favor  of 
Great  Britain."  December  25th,  1796,  he  writes  to  Madison  : 
"The  President  is  fortunate  to  get  off  (his  term  would 
expire  the  coming  fourth  of  March)  just  as  the  bubble  is 


148  NOTES   OX 

about  bursting;  ....  he  will  have  his  usual  good  fortune 
of  reaping  credit  for  the  good  acts  of  others,  and  leaving  to 
them  that  of  his  errors."  Another  letter  of  his  to  Mr. 
Madison,  dated  January  8th,  1797,  contains  this  scandalous 
paragraph  ;  "  Monroe  was  appointed  to  office  ....  merely 
to  get  him  out  of  the  Senate,  and  with  an  intention  to  seize 
the  first  pretext  for  exercising  the  pleasure  of  recalling  him." 
Writing  to  Mr.  Tazewell,  Jefferson  thus  expresses  himself 
in  regard  to  Washington,  "  I  hope  also  that  the  recent 
insults  of  the  English  will  at  length  awaken  in  our  Execu 
tive  that  sense  of  public  honor  and  spirit  which  they  have 
not  lost  sight  of  in  their  proceedings  with  other  nations, 
and  will  establish  the  eternal,  truth  that  acquiescence  under 
insult  is  not  the  way  to  escape  war." 

The  famous  letter  to  Mazzei,  dated  April  24th,  1796, 
contains  these  passages:  "  The  aspect  of  our  politics  has 
wonderfully  changed  since  you  left  us.  In  place  of  that  noble 
love  of  liberty  and  republican  government,  which  carried  us 
triumphantly  through  the  war,  an  Anglican,  monarchical, 
and  aristocratical  party  has  sprung  up,  whose  avowed  object 
is  to  draw  over  us  the  substance,  as  they  have  already  done 
the  forms  of  the  British  government,  The  main  body  of  our 
citizens,  however,  remain  true  to  republican  principles." 
"  Against  us  are  the  Executive,  the  judiciary,  two  out  of  three 
branches  of  the  Legislature,  all  the  officers  of  the  Govern 
ment  .  .  .  .  and  holders  in  the  banks,  and  public  funds, 
a  contrivance  invented  for  purposes  of  corruption."  "  It 
would  give  you  a  fever  were  I  to  name  to  you  the  apostates 
who  have  gone  over  to  these  heresies,  men  who  were  Sam 
sons  in  the  field,  and  Solomons  in  the  council,  but  who 
have  had  their  heads  shorn  by  the  harlot  of  England.  We 
are  likely  to  preserve  the  liberty  we  have  gained  only  by 
unremitting  labors  and  perils ;  our  mass  of  weight  and 


THOMAS   JEFFERSOX.  149 

wealth  on  the  good  side  is  so  great,  as  to  leave  no  danger  that 
force  will  ever  be  attempted  against  us.  We  have  only  to 
awake,  and  snap  the  Lilliputian  cords  with  which  they  have 
been  entangling  us,  during  the  first  sleep  which  succeeded 
our  labors/'  In  this  letter,  Washington,  who  was  the  Exec 
utive  when  it  was  written,  is  accused  of  being  a  member  of 
an  Anglican,  monarchical,  and  aristocratical  party  (a  truly 
wonderful  party,  it  may  be  remarked),  whose  avowed  pur 
pose  is  to  establish  here  a  government  like  that  of  Great 
Britain  ;  a  party,  that  has  for  years  been  "  entangling  the 
people  for  some  ulterior  purpose ;  that  is  so  bent  on  the 
destruction  of  popular  liberty,  that  it  can  only  be  preserved 
by  "  unremitting  labors  and  perils  :"  he  is  charged  with  be 
ing  an  apostate,  and  with  having  approved  arid  helped  to 
create  "  a  contrivance,  invented  for  purposes  of  corrup 
tion.7'  It  is,  moreover,  intimated  that  he  and  his  party 
meditated  the  employment  of  force  against  their  political 
opponents,  and  that  he  is  one  of  those  whose  head  has  been 
.shorn  by  the  harlot  of  England.  It  is  true,  none  of  these 
accusations  are  clearly  formulated.  Jefferson  rarely  made 
a  direct  charge,  but  they  are  none  the  less  contained  in  the 
letter  when  it  is  read  in  the  light  of  contemporaneous 
history. 

Jefferson  not  only  himself  traduced  Washington,  but 
sanctioned,  instigated,  and  probably  procured  the  vitu 
peration  of  him  by  others.  The  papers,  that  most  violently 
assailed  him  and  his  administration,  were  the  National 
Gazette,  and  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  that  afterwards 
became  the  Aurora.  Washington  wrote  General  Lee  that 
the  "  publications  in  these  two  papers  were  outrages  on 
common  decency"  Two  extracts  from  articles  which 
appeared  in  them,  when  Washington's  second  term  expired, 
show  the  character  of  their  attacks  upon  him.  First.  "  The 


450  NOTES   OX 

man  who  is  the  source  of  the  misfortunes  of  our  country  is 
this  day  reduced  to  a  level  with  his  fellow  citizens,  and  is 
no  longer  possessed  of  the  power  to  multiply  evils  on  the 
United  States.  If  ever  there  was  a  period  for  rejoicing,  this 
is  the  moment.  Every  heart  ought  to  exult,  that  the  name 
of  Washington  from  this  day  ceases  to  give  currency  to 
political  iniquity,  and  to  legalize  corruption.  A  new  era 
is  opening,  ....  for  nefarious  projects  can  no  longer  be 
supported  by  a  name.  When  retrospect  is  taken  of  the 
Washington  administration,  it  is  a  subject  of  astonishment 
that  a  single  individual  could  have  cankered  the  principles 
of  Republicanism  in  an  intelligent  people,  and  should  have 
carried  his  designs  against  the  public  liberty  so  far,  as  to 
put  in  jeopardy  its  very  existence ;  such,  however,  are  the 
facts."  Second.  "  If  ever  a  nation  was  debauched  by  a  man, 
the  American  nation  has  been  debauched  by  Washington.  If 
ever  a  nation  was  deceived  by  a  man,  the  American  nation 
has  been  deceived  by  Washington  ....  Let  the  history 
of  the  Federal  Government  instruct  mankind,  that  the 
mask  of  patriotism  may  be  worn  to  conceal  the  foulest 
designs  against  the  liberty  of  the  people."  One  is  astounded 
at  the  audacity  and  malignity  of  these  attacks. 

Freneau,  the  editor  of  the  National  Gazette,  was  translating 
clerk  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  was  appointed 
by  Jefferson,  whose  protege  and  dependant  he  was.  Jefferson 
aided  him  in  establishing  his  paper,  recommended  it  to  his 
friends,  furnished  it  occasionally  with  public  documents, 
and  procured  subscribers  for  it.  It  was  universally  recog 
nized  as  the  organ  of  the  Secretary.  During  much  of  the 
time  that  Jefferson  was  a  member  of  Washington's  Cabinet, 
the  Gazette  kept  up  its  abuse  of  the  President,  but  the 
Secretary  made  no  attempt  to  check  it,  and  no  apology  to 
Washington  for  its  denunciation  of  him. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  151 

The  Aurora  was  under  the  control  of  B.  F.  Bache,  who, 
educated  in  France,  was  fanatically  favorable  to  the  ideas 
of  the  French  Revolution;  Cobbett  calls  him,  "  That  yelper 
in  the  Democratic  kennel."  He  was  a  friend  and  admirer 
of  Jefferson,  whose  claims  to  the  presidency,  he  was  one  of 
the  first  to  advocate.  Jefferson  urged  Madison  to  obtain 
subscriptions  for  the  Aurora,  that  at  the  time  was  languish 
ing  for  lack  of  support.  The  Gazette  and  the  Aurora  ad 
vocated  Jefferson's  political  sentiments,  and  expressed  his 
opinion  of  the  leading  men  of  the  time.  In  their  editorials, 
there  not  infrequently  appeared  the  turns  of  thought,  and, 
sometimes,  the  very  language  found  in  his  writings.  In  a 
sketch  of  Freneau,  found  in  the  New  American  Cyclopcedia, 
it  is  said,  that,  according  to  Freneau's  statement,  the  most 
severe  attacks  upon  Washington's  administration,  which 
appeared  in  the  National  Gazette,  "  were  written  or  dictated 
by  Jefferson." 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  stated  respecting  his  imme 
diate  relations  to  these  two  papers,  it  may  be  said  that  after 
his  retirement  from  the  cabinet,  Monticello  became  the  head 
quarters  of  those  opposed  to  Washington  and  his  admin 
istration,  and  that  Jefferson  exercised  all  the  prerogatives 
of  the  acknowledged  leader  of  his  party.  Among  those 
prerogatives  was,  of  course,  a  large  if  not  a  controlling  in 
fluence  in  the  management  of  the  whole  party  press.  He 
must,  therefore,  be  held  mainly  responsible  for  its  virulent 
abuse  of  Washington. 

A  notorious  libeller  of  the  General,  was  James  T.  Cal- 
lender,  a  Scotchman,  who  fled  from  Great  Britain  to  avoid 
a  prosecution.  Having  arrived  in  this  country,  he  joined 
himself  to  the  Republicans,  and  soon  found  congenial  work 
in  the  publication  of  a  scandalous  attack  upon  Hamilton. 
While  temporarily  in  charge  of  the  Aurora,  in  the  absence 
of  Bache,  he  industriously  slandered  leading  Federalists  in 


152  NOTES   ON 

its  columns.  He  was  subsequently  invited  by  Mr.  Mason, 
a  Senator  from  Virginia,  to  his  home  near  Alexandria. 
While  sharing  the  Senator's  hospitality,  he  was  found  drunk 
and  dirty  in  the  purlieus  of  a  neighboring  distillery. 
Arrested  as  a  vagrant,  and  taken  before  two  Justices  of  the 
Peace,  he  was  committed  to  jail  upon  suspicion  of  having 
escaped  from  the  Baltimore  wheelbarrow  gang.  His  host 
procured  his  release,  by  presenting  his  naturalization  papers, 
and  vouching  for  his  good  character.  By  the  aid  of  Re 
publican  friends,  he  established  the  Examiner  at  Richmond. 
There,  convicted  of  seditious  libel  for  the  publication  of  a 
pamphlet,  entitled  "  The  Prospect  Before  Us"  containing 
slanders  upon  Washington  and  Adams,  he  was  fined  $250, 
and  sentenced  to  nine  months'  imprisonment.  This  fellow 
complained  that  the  honors  accorded  to  the  memory  of 
Washington  were  idolatrous,  and  too  expensive.  Like  Judas, 
when  the  weeping  Mary  poured  the  precious  ointment  on 
the  feet  of  the  Saviour,  he  asked,  "  Why  was  not  this  money 
given  to  the  poor?" 

Scarcely  was  Jefferson  seated  in  the  presidential  chair, 
when  he  pardoned  Callender,  and  by  the  exercise  of  a  doubt 
ful  power,  remitted  his  fine,  which  had  been  paid.  He, 
moreover,  five  times  sent  him  money ;  three  of  these  remit 
tances  were  $50  each. 

Incensed  at  his  failure  to  obtain  the  Post  mastership  at 
Richmond,  Callender  ascribed  to  Jefferson  the  publication 
of  The  Prospect  Before  Us.  Jefferson  felt  this  keenly,  styled 
Callender  a  "  lying  renegade,"  and  promised  to  show  the 
falsity  of  his  imputation,  by  publishing  all  the  letters  he 
had  ever  written  to  him  ;  but  he  never  did  so,  alleging  that 
the  copies  of  them  could  not  be  found.  Callender,  how 
ever,  produced  the  letters  themselves,  from  which  it  appeared 
that  Jefferson,  notwithstanding  his  disclaimers  to  Madison 
and  others,  contributed  money  to  defray  the  expenses  of 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  153 

publishing  the  scandalous  pamphlet,  furnished  information 
for  it,  and  actually  saw  and  approved  some  of  the  proof- 
sheets. 

In  an  entry  in  the  Ana,  under  date  of  August  2d, 
1793,  Jefferson  states  that  General  Knox,  introduced  into 
a  Cabinet  meeting  a  pasquinade  on  the  President,  in  which 
Washington  and  others  were  depicted  on  a  guillotine.  The 
author  of  the  Ana  relates  the  occurrence,  with  perfect  sang 
froid,  as  if  a  brutal  caricature  of  the  President  was  no 
concern  of  his.  He  does  not  even  express  surprise ;  he 
characterizes  what  one  must  suppose  was  Knox;s  outburst 
of  indignation  at  the  outrage,  as  "  a  foolish  and  incoherent 
sort  of  a  speech."  He  records  with  apparent  satisfaction, 
that  "  the  President  was  much  inflamed — got  into  one  of 
those  passions,  when  he  cannot  command  himself;  "  that  he 
denounced  that  "  rascal  Freneau,"  and  used  improper  lan 
guage.  But  the  narrator  did  not  set  forth  the  President's 
strong  and  frequent  provocations  to  wrath,  nor  had  he  a 
word  of  censure  for  the  author  of  the  ferocious  lampoon  ; 
the  enemies  of  Washington  were  the  friends  of  Jefferson. 
Jeiferson's  bearing  towards  the  French  minister,  Mr.  Genet, 
while  the  latter  was  insulting  Washington  and  defying  his 
authority,  is  noticed  elsewhere. 

In  July,  1796,  Thomas  Paine  addressed  to  Washington  a 
letter,  containing  these  passages  :  "  When  we  speak  of  mili 
tary  character,  something  more  is  understood  than  constancy, 
and  something  more  ought  to  be  understood,  than  the  Fabian 

system  of  doing  nothing The  successful  skirmishes, 

at  the  close  of  one  campaign,  make  the  brilliant  exploits  of 

Washington's  seven  campaigns No  wonder  we  see  so 

much  pusillanimity  in  the  President,  when  we  saw  so  little 
enterprise  in  the  General,  ....  Elected  to  the  Presidency, 
the  natural  ingratitude  of  your  constitution  began  to  appear. 

11 


154  NOTES   ON 

The  lands  obtained  by  the  Revolution,  were  lavished  upon 
partisans ;  the  interest  of  the  disbanded  soldier  was  sold  to 
the  speculator;  injustice  was  acted  under  the  pretence  of 
faith,  and  the  chief  of  the  army  became  the  partner  of  the 

fraud And  as  to  you,  sir,  treacherous  in  private 

friendship,  and  a  hypocrite  in  public  life,  the  world  will  be 
puzzled  to  decide  whether  you  are  an  apostate  or  an  impos 
tor;  whether  you  have  abandoned  good  principles,  or 
whether  you  ever  had  any/' 

No  one  with  an  American  heart,  can  even  now  read  these 
words  without  indignation.  Surely  Mr.  Jefferson  had  no 
connection,  direct  or  indirect,  with  this  infamous  letter ; 
surely,  when  it  appeared,  he  hastened  to  denounce  the  inso 
lent  foreigner,  who  dared  thus  foully  to  insult  a  man,  who 
was  not  only  President  of  Jefferson's  country,  but  his  own 
friend.  The  letter  was  written  at  Paris,  under  the  roof  of 
Mr.  Monroe,  through  whose  intercession  Paine  had  been  re 
leased  from  a  French  prison.  It  is  well  known  that  Monroe 
was  one  of  Jefferson's  most  intimate  friends,  more  inti 
mate  with  him,  perhaps,  than  any  one,  except  Mr.  Madison. 
Jefferson  subsequently  wrote  Paine  a  letter,  of  which  this 
is  the  conclusion  :  "  That  you  may  long  live  to  continue 
your  useful  labors,  and  to  reap  their  reward  in  the  thank 
fulness  of  nations,  is  my  sincere  prayer.  Accept  assurances 
of  my  high  esteem,  and  affectionate  attachment."  After  he 
became  President,  he  gave  Paine  a  passage  from  France  to 
our  shores  in  a  national  vessel,  received  him  with  honor  at 
the  executive  mansion,  and  welcomed  him  to  Monticello. 
It  may  be  mentioned,  that  about  the  time  Paine  was  set 
at  liberty,  Mr.  Monroe  declined  to  ask  the  discharge  of 
Madame  Lafayette  from  prison. 

In  order  that  the  above- narrated  transactions' of  Mr.  Jef 
ferson  and  his  friends  may  be  fully  appreciated,  the  follow- 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  155 

ing  facts  should  be  considered.  During  the  greater  portion 
of  the  time  over  which  the  transactions  extended,  Washirg- 
ton  was  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  nation.  He  had  rendered 
most  valuable  services  to  his  fellow-countrymen,  in  war  and 
in  peace.  His  character  was  irreproachable.  He  was  the 
most  popular  man  in  the  country.  He  never  wronged  or 
insulted  Mr.  Jefferson,  or  even  treated  him  with  discourtesy 
—nor  was  he  accused  of  doing  so.  He  appointed  Jefferson 
Secretary  of  State,  honored  him  with  his  confidence,  was 
his  friend,  when  Freneau  discharged  his  first  poisoned  arrow 
at  the  President,  and  remained  his  friend  throughout  the 
whole  period  of  defamation.  Jefferson  knew  full  well  that 
Washington  was  vexed  and  pained  by  the  press  attacks. 
This  appears  from  the  Ana,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  he 
was  "sore  and  hot"  on  account  of  them,  and  that  on  one 
occasion,  he  vehemently  declared  he  would  not  continue  to 
endure  them  for  the  empire  of  the  world ;  it  also  appears 
from  a  letter  of  his  to  Jefferson,  in  which  he  complains  with 
much  feeling,  that  the  denunciation  poured  upon  him  by  the 
press,  could  be  deserved  only  by  "  a  Nero  or  a  pickpocket." 
He  was  vituperated  at  a  time  when  he  was  beset  with 
difficulties, and  burdened  with  responsibilities,  resulting  from 
the  changes  effected  in  our  civil  polity  by  the  Constitution 
— difficulties  and  responsibilities  so  great,  that  Jefferson 
himself  expressed  the  opinion  that  no  one,  except  the  leader 
of  our  Revolutionary  army,  could  establish  and  maintain 
the  new  government  against  those  opposed  to  it.  (Letter  to 
Mr.  Hopkinson,  March,  1789.)  Above  all,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  Washington  had  labored  more  efficiently 
than  any  other  person,  to  achieve  that  very  liberty  which 
his  assailants  persistently  charged  him  with  seeking  to  sub 
vert.  Jefferson  did  not  venture  openly  or  directly  to  asperse 
the  man,  whom  a  grateful  people  designated  and  recognized 


156  NOTES   ON 

as  "  the  father  of  his  country."     The  attacks  were  made  in 
private  letters,  and  through  the  agency  of  others  ;  the  most 
malignant  calumniators   were   foreign   adventurers.      For 
years  before  the   batteries  of  detraction  were  opened,  and 
during  the  whole   time   their  fire  was  continued,  Jefferson 
professed  friendship  and  admiration  for  Washington,  some 
times  in  terms  indicative  of  veneration.    Here  are  the  proofs. 
On  May  28th,  1781,  Jefferson,  then  Governor  of  Vir 
ginia,  wrote  to  the  General-in-Chief  of  the  army,  asking 
him  to  come  in  person   and  expel  the  British  troops  from 
the  State.     In  this  letter,  the  Governor  thus  appeals  to  the 
General :     "  Your    appearance   among    them    (Virginians) 
would  restore  full  confidence  of  salvation,  and  render  them 
equal  to  whatever  is  not   impossible."     He  adds  that  the 
General's  presence  would  give  the  writer  "  an  additional 
motive  (which  I  thought  could  not  have  been)  for  that  grati 
tude,  esteem,  and  respect  which  I  have  long  felt  for  your 
excellency."     In  March,  1789,  he  wrote  Mr.  F.  Hopkinson 
that  Washington's  "executive  talents  are  superior,  I   be 
lieve,  to  those  of  any  man  in  the  world,"  and   alluded  to 
"his   perfect  integrity."     On   March  27th,  1791,  he  thus 
addresses  Washington  himself:  "For  your  safety,  no  one 
on  earth  more   sincerely  prays  than  I,  both  for  public  and 
private  regards."     The  letter  containing  his  resignation  of 
the   Secretaryship  of   State,  dated    December   31st,  1793, 
closes   as   follows :  "  I   carry  into   my  retirement  a   lively 
sense  of  your   goodness,  and   shall   continue   gratefully  to 
remember  it.     With  my  serious  prayers  for  your  life,  health, 
and  tranquillity,  I  pray  you  to  accept  the  homage  of  the 
great  and   constant  respect  and  attachment  with  which   I 
have  the  honor  to  be,  etc."     Compare  these  humbly  affec 
tionate  words  with  the  bitter  and  contemptuous   language 
respecting  the  President,  found  in  the   letter  to   Madison, 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  157 

written  just  one  year  afterwards,  in  regard  to  the  Demo 
cratic  societies  and  the  repression  of  the  Whiskey  Revolt. 

On  June  10th,  1796,  the  Aurora  published  the  questions 
concerning  our  relations  with  France,  that  were  confi 
dentially  submitted  to  the  Cabinet  when  Jefferson  was 
Secretary  of  State,  and  of  which,  as  Washington  knew,  the 
ex-Secretary  had  a  copy.  On  June  19th,  Jefferson,  then  at 
Monticello,  addressed  to  Washington  a  letter,  in  which  he 
disavowed  with  vehement  asseverations  of  sincerity,  any 
connection  with  the  publication.  In  that  letter,  he  takes 
occasion  to  express  his  undiminished  regard  for  the  Presi 
dent,  and  continues:  "I  learn  that  this  last  (General  H. 
Lee)  has  thought  it  worth  while  to  try  to  sow  tares  between 
you  and  me,  by  representing  rne  as  still  engaged  in  turbu 
lence  and  intrigue  against  the  government.  I  never  believed 
for  a  moment  that  this  could  make  any  impression  on  you, 
or  that  your  knowledge  of  me  would  not  outweigh  the 
slander  of  an  intriguer."  It  will  be  remembered  that  he 
expressed  similar  sentiments,  and  employed  some  of  these 
very  phrases  in  a  letter  to  Aaron  Burr,  written  in  1801,  a 
few  days  before  the  balloting  for  President  began  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  After  very  affectionate  compli 
ments  to  Mrs.  Washington,  he  concludes  in  these  terms  :  "I 
have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  and  sincere  esteem  and  re 
spect,  dear  sir,  your  most  obedient  and  most  humble  servant." 
Two  months  before,  he  had  written  the  Mazzei  letter. 

We  learn  from  Jefferson  himself  that  his  last  meeting 
with  Washington  was  at  the  inauguration  of  Mr.  Adams  > 
that  his  parting  on  that  occasion  "  was  warmly  affectionate, 
and  I  never  had  reason  to  believe  any  change  on  his  part, 
as  there  certainly  was  none  on  mine."  (Letter  to  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  June  29^,  1824.)  In  May,  1797,  the  Mazzei  letter 
appeared  in  this  country.  Jefferson  privately  admitted 


158  NOTES    OX 

that  the  letter  as  published  was  substantially  what  he  had 
written  to  Mazzei,  except  "  in  one  place/'  but  upon  consul 
tation  with  his  friends,  decided  not  to  avow  or  disavow  his 
authorship  of  it. 

Some  twenty-seven  years  after,  Timothy  Pickering  stated, 
in  his  Review  of  the  Correspondence  between  John  Adams 
and  William  Cunningham,  that  Washington  demanded  in 
writing  from  Jefferson  a  disavowal  of  this  letter,  or  an 
apology  for  it.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  denying  this  state 
ment,  and  showing  its  improbability,  that  the  letter  to 
Van  Buren  was  written.  In  that  letter,  Jefferson  declares 
that  no  apology  was  made  or  demanded ;  that  no  corre 
spondence  in  regard  to  the  Mazzei  letter  was  exchanged 
between  himself  and  Washington;  that  the  expression, 
"  Samsons  in  the  field,"  found  therein,  referred  to  the  Cin 
cinnati  generally,  and  that  Washington  had  no  cause  to  be 
offended,  and  was  not  offended  at  the  contents  of  the  letter. 
But  in  writing  to  Madison,  August  3d,  1797,  he  assigns  as 
one  of  the  chief  reasons  for  not  avowing  the  letter,  the 
apprehension  that  such  avowal  would  "  bring  on  a  personal 
difference  between  General  Washington  and  myself.  It 
would  embroil  me,  too,  with  all  those  with  whom  his  char 
acter  is  still  popular,  that  is,  with  nine-tenths  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States."  The  letters  mentioned  by  Mr.  Pick 
ering  were  not  found  among  Washington's  papers,  after  his 
death.  They,  who  allege  the  correspondence,  say  the  letters 
were  probably  abstracted  by  some  one,  possibly  by  Tobias 
Lear,  Washington's  private  secretary.  Jefferson  maintained 
a  confidential  intercourse  with  Lear,  and  soon  after  his  acces 
sion  to  the  Presidency,  gave  him  a  diplomatic  appointment. 

Early  in  the  year  1798,  John  Nicholas,  of  Virginia, 
informed  Washington  by  mail  that  there  was  in  the  Char- 
lottesville  Post  Office  a  letter  addressed  in  his  hand-writ- 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  159 

ing  to  John  Langhorne.  Mr.  Nicholas  further  stated  that 
no  person  of  that  name  resided  in  that  vicinity,  or,  to  the 
best  of  his  knowledge,  in  the  County,  and  that  he  feared 
some  one  had  laid  a  snare  for  the  ex-President.  -  Washing 
ton  answered  that,  a  short  time  before,  he  had  received  a 
letter,  dated  Warren,  Albemarle  county,  Va.,  and  signed 
John  Langhorne,  in  which  the  writer  condoled  with  him  in 
the  aspersions  to  which  he  was  subjected,  and  hoped  he  would 
not  permit  them  to  disturb  his  peace  of  mind,  and  that  he 
had  replied  to  it.  He  sent  Mr.  Nicholas  a  copy  of  the  letter 
and  of  the  reply.  Mr.  Nicholas  learned  that  the  Langhorne 
letter  was  taken  from  the  post  office  by  a  political  opponent  of 
Washington,  it  would  seem  by  a  messenger  from  Monticello. 
After  further  investigations,  Mr.  Nicholas  wrote  another 
letter  to  Washington.  This  letter  has  not  been  published, 
but  some  idea  of  its  contents  may  be  formed  from  Wrash- 
ington's  answer,  dated  March  8th,  1798.  In  this  he 
writes :  "  Nothing  short  of  the  evidence  you  have  adduced, 
corroborative  of  intimations  which  I  had  received  long 
before  through  another  channel,  could  have  shaken  my 
belief  in  the  sincerity  of  a  friendship,  which  I  conceived 
was  possessed  for  me  by  the  person  (Jefferson)  to  whom 
you  allude."  His  belief  in  a  friendship,  attested  by 
the  repeated  and  deferential  declarations  of  a  person  so 
trusted,  and  bound  to  him  by  so  many  ties  as  was  Mr.  Jef 
ferson,  must,  indeed,  have  been  hard  to  shake.  The  fact 
that  John  Nicholas  was  a  zealous  and  somewhat  prominent 
member  of  the  political  party  opposed  to  him,  had  probably 
much  weight  with  Washington.  It  is  proper  to  state  that 
Jefferson,  when  he  wrote  Mr.  Van  Buren  the  letter  in  which 
he  endeavored  to  show  that  he  retained  Washington's  con 
fidence  to  the  end,  was  ignorant  of  the  correspondence 
between  the  latter  and  Mr.  Nicholas. 


160  NOTES   ON 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

•  JEFFERSON'S  OPINION  OF  RIOTS  AND  INSUR 
RECTIONS, 

FROM  Paris,  on  December  20th,  1787,  he  wrote  to  Mr. 
Madison  "The  late  rebellion  in  Massachusetts  (Shay's)  has 
given  more  alarm  than  it  should  have  done.  Calculate  that 
one  rebellion  in  thirteen  States,  in  the  course  of  eleven 
years,  is  but  one  for  each  State,  in  a  century  and  a  half. 
No  country  should  be  so  long  without  one." 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison  of  December  28th,  1794,  he 
refers  to  the  Whiskey  Insurrection  of  Western  Pennsylvania. 
Far  from  blaming  the  insurgents,  he  excuses  them ;  calls 
them  "  our  friends ; "  styles  the  Excise  law  that  caused  the 
revolt,  "  an  infernal  one  ;  "  condemns,  in  very  strong  terms, 
the  violent  means  employed  for  its  suppression  ;  censures  the 
Government  for  its  decisive  action  in  the  matter ;  ridicules 
the  troops  it  sent ;  says  the  detestation  of  the  law  is  universal, 
and  has  extended  itself  to  the  Government;  and  finally  de 
clares  that  "separation  is  now  near  and  certain,  and 
determined  in  the  mind  of  every  man."  In  a  word,  his 
indignation  is  stirred,  not  by  the  insurrection,  but  by  its 
suppression.  The  insurgents  attacked  with  a  force  of  500 
men  the  house  of  the  inspector  of  the  revenue,  and  a  de 
tachment  of  United  States  troops  sent  for  its  defence; 
burned  the  house,  and  forced  the  officer  in  command  of  the 
troops  to  march  out  and  surrender;  shot  at  the  U.  S.  Mar 
shal  while  in  the  performance  of  his  duty ;  seized  him  and 
endeavored  to  intimidate  him  ;  violated  the  United  States 


THOMAS    JEFFEKSON.  161 

mail ;  banished  from  Pittsburgh  citizens  whom  they  sus 
pected  of  allegiance  to  the  government;  declared  their 
purpose  to  resist  by  violence  every  attempt  to  enforce  the 
obnoxious  law,  and,  to  carry  out  this  purpose,  raised  a  force 
of  seven  thousand  men  ;  rejected  an  amnesty  proffered  by 
the  President,  and  set  on  foot  measures  for  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  in  case  other  methods  of  nullifying  the  law 
should  prove  abortive.  The  conspiracy  extended  over 
Western  Pennsylvania,  Western  Maryland,  and  parts  of 
Virginia.  Some  of  its  agencies  were  established  in  the 
very  suburbs  of  Philadelphia.  One  of  the  leaders  said  that 
if  much  pressed,  they  might  march  on  the  seat  of  the 
National  Government.  So  great  was  the  prevalent  sense 
of  danger  in  the  disturbed  districts,  that  even  Quakers 
volunteered  to  fight  against  the  insurgents.  Such  was  the 
rebellion  that  Jefferson  palliated,  styling  it  merely  "  riotous 
transactions,"  and  excusing  it,  on  the  ground  that  the  Excise 
law  was  objectionable.  His  own  State  shamed  him  by 
a  ready  response  to  the  President's  call  for  volunteers, 
and  her  Governor,  General  Lee,  accepted  the  position  of 
commander-in-chief  of  the  troops  called  out  for  the  sup 
pression  of  the  insurrection. 

Jefferson  wrote  from  Paris  to  Edward  Carrington,  Janu 
ary  16th,  1787,  "To  punish  these  errors  (tumults  in  the 
Eastern  States)  too  severely  would  be  to  suppress  the  only 
safeguard  of  the  public  liberty."  On  January  30th,  1787, 
he  writes  to  Mr.  Carrington,  "A  little  rebel  lion  now  and  then 
is  as  necessary  in  the  political  world,  as  storms  in  the  phy 
sical  ;"  "  Governors  should  be  so  mild  in  their  punishment 
of  rebellions  as  not  to  discourage  them  too  much.  It  is  a 
medicine,  necessary  for  the  sound  health  of  the  government." 

Writing  to  Colonel  Smith,  he  exclaims:  "  God  forbid  we 
should  ever  be  twenty  years  without  such  a  rebellion!  (as 


162  NOTES    OX 

Shay's)  ....  What  country  can  preserve  its  liberties,  if 
its  rulers  are  not  warned  from  time  to  time  that  this  people 
preserve  the  spirit  of  resistance  ?  Let  them  take  arms. 
The  remedy  is  to  set  them  right  as  to  facts,  pardon  and 

pacify  them The  tree  of  liberty  must  be   refreshed 

from  time  to  time  with  the  blood  of  patriots  and  tyrants.  It 
is  its  natural  manure." 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  163 


CHAPTER  XX. 

SOME    EVIDENCE   OF   HIS    INSINCERITY. 

A  CLOSE  observer  of  men  has  remarked,  "  Beware  of  him, 
who  places  his  hand  over  his  heart,  when  he  makes  a  state 
ment  or  a  promise."  The  same  caution  should  be  exercised 
in  regard  to  him  who  habitually  employs  asseveration  in 
writing  or  speaking.  Jefferson  frequently  did  this.  He 
protested  "In  the  name  of  Heaven,"  that  he  made  no 
effort  to  control  the  sentiments  or  the  conduct  of  the 
National  Gazette.  In  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1775,  he 
declared  "  By  the  God  that  made  me,  I  will  cease  to  exist, 
before  I  yield  to  such  a  connection  with  England,  and  on 
such  terms  as  the  British  Parliament  propose."  When  he 
was  about  to  relate  an  incident  derogatory  to  Hamilton,  in 
the  introduction  to  his  Ana,  he  prefaced  the  relation  by 
the  words :  "  For  the  truth  of  which  (this)  I  attest  the  God 
who  made  me."  When  he  expressed,  in  a  letter  to  Adams, 
the  pleasure  which  the  latter's  election  to  the  Presidency 
afforded  him,  he  appealed  to  his  neighbors  for  confirmation 
of  \vhat  he  wrote. 

Truth,  in  her  narrations,  resorts  to  no  oaths,  expletives, 
or  attestations;  her  language  is  simple,  her  communica 
tions  are  yea,  yea,  and  nay,  nay.  The  asseverations  of 
Jefferson  weaken  rather  than  strengthen  his  declarations. 
They  awaken  doubts  of  his  sincerity.  Accordingly,  one 
is  not  surprised  to  find  in  his  life  and  writings,  exhibitions 
of  the  opposite  quality.  Some  of  them  we  mention. 

1.  He  received  Lafayette  cordially,  with  protestations  of 


164  NOTES   ON 

gratitude  and  friendship.  Very  soon  thereafter,  he  wrote 
that  the  Frenchman  had  a  "  Canine  thirst  for  popularity  ;" 
— this  in  a  letter  to  Madison. 

2.  He  styled    kings   "human    lions,    tigers,   and   mam 
moths/'  not  once,   but  several  times  during   his  writings. 
On  April  6th,  1790,  he  pronounced  Louis  XVI.  "  A  prince, 
the  model  of  Royal  excellence,"  and  otherwise  eulogized 
him.      He  also  praised  Alexander  I.,  of  Russia,  almost 
fulsomely,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  him  in  1805. 

3.  He  more  than  once  expressed  a  wish  to  "  extirpate 
from  creation"  the  royal  lions,  tigers,  and  mammoths  afore 
said,   whom    he    sometimes    transformed    into    "vermin." 
Yet  the   letter   to   the  Czar,  above  mentioned,  thus  closes: 
"  By  monuments  of  such  offices,  may  your  life   become  an 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  condition  of  men,  and  may  He 
who  called  it  into  being  for  the  good  of  the  human  family, 
give  it  length  of  days  and  success,  and  have  it  always  in  his 
holy  keeping."     This   letter  was  not  called  forth   by    the 
demands  of  hospitality,  diplomacy,  or  gratitude  for  some 
great  national  assistance,  such  as  that  rendered  us  by  France, 
buc    was   Jefferson's    spontaneous    tribute    to    one    of   the 
"  imperial  vermin." 

4.  When  he  quitted  the  gubernatorial  chair  of  Virginia, 
he  solemnly  expressed  his  fixed  resolution  never  to  return 
to  public  life.      The  very  next  year,  he  accepted  an  office 
under  the  general  government,  and  was  afterwards,  succes 
sively  Minister  at  the  court  of  Versailles,  Secretary  of  State, 
Vice-President,  and  President  for  two  terms. 

5.  On  May  14th,  1794,  he  wrote  Washington,  "I  cherish 
tranquillity  too  much  to  suffer  political  things  to  enter  my 
mind  at  all."     In  the  following  December,  he  penned  that 
letter  to   Madison,  in   which  he  rails  at  the  President  for 
his  expressed  disapprobation  of  the  Democratic  societies. 


THOMAS    JEFFERSON.  165 

This  letter  reveals  Jefferson's  familiarity  with  public 
affairs,  and  his  profound  interest  in  the  "  things"  to  which 
he  professed  entire  indifference,  as  well  as  theundiminished 
intensity  of  his  political  feelings,  for  he  therein  designates 
the  Senate  as  the  "  Augean  herd." 

6.  In  the  letter  last   mentioned,  dated   December   28th, 
1794,  are  found  these  words,  "  I  would  not  give  up  my  re 
tirement/or  the  empire  of  the  universe"    In  less  than  twelve 
months,  Jefferson  was  recognized  by  the  leaders  of  his  party 
as  the  Republican  candidate   for  the  Presidency,  and   was 
voted  for  as  such  by  his  party  friends  at  the  election  in  Octo 
ber,  1796.     The  electoral  votes  cast  for  him,  did  not  elevate 
him  to  the  Presidency,  but  were  numerous  enough  to  make 
him  Vice-President.     This  office  he  did  not  decline,  and  he 
soon  left  his  retirement  for  an  authority  not  quite  so  exten 
sive  as  the  empire  of  the  universe. 

7.  Only  four  months  prior  to  this  election,  he  pretended 
in  a  letter  to  Washington  that  he  was  taking  no  part  in 
political  affairs,  in  fact  that  he  had  an  aversion  to  them. 
"  Political  conversations "  wrote   this  ambitious   man,  "  I 
actually  dislike,  and  avoid,  when  I  can  without  affectation." 

8.  When  this  result   of  the  election   was  ascertained,  he 
wrote    Mr.    Adams    the    President-elect,   that    he    "  never 
wished  any  other  issue  "  of  the  contest.     He  had  consented 
to  be  put  forward  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  his 
party  friends  had  voted  for  him,  and  endeavored  to  elect 
him;  he  had  watched  their  efforts  in  his  behalf,  he  knew 
how  earnestly  they  desired  his  success,  but  he  never  wished 
to  be  chosen,  and  was  pleased  at  his  and  their  failure.      He 
was  a  zealous  Republican,  opposed  to  any  increase  of  Fed 
eral  power,  and  fearful  that  we  were  tending  towards  the 
English  form  of  government.    Adams  was  a  leading  Feder 
alist,  in  favor  of  a  strong  central  government,  and  one  of 


166  NOTES   ON 

those  most  seriously  afflicted  with  that  "  Anglomania " 
which  so  much  alarmed  Jefferson  ;  yet  he  was  gratified  by 
Adams's  election,  and  never  wished  any  other  result. 

That  Adams  would  doubt  this  astonishing  statement  Jef- 
erson  knew,  and  referred  therefore  to  his  neighbors  for  attes 
tation  of  his  sincerity.  He  wrote  :  "  And  though  I  shall  not 
be  believed,  yet  it  is  not  the  less  true,  that  I  never  wished 
any  other  (issue).  My  neighbors,  as  my  compurgators,  could 
aver  this  fact  as  seeing  my  occupations  and  my  attachment 
to  them."  Does  a  man  conscious  of  his  own  sincerity,  an 
ticipate  that  his  statement  will  be  disbelieved,  and  bring 
forward  his  "  compurgators,"  before  his  truthfulness  is 
questioned  ?  Not  only  was  he  glad  that  Adams  was  chosen, 
but  he  intimated  that  he  would  not  be  displeased  at  the  re 
election  of  his  late  opponent.  Surely,  more  compurgation 
is  needed  here. 

This  letter  is  so  fine  a  specimen  of  Jefferson's  episto 
lary  excellence,  that  it  merits  special  attention.  Though 
he  states  therein  that  "in  the  retired  canton"  wherein 
he  lives,  "  we  know  little  of  what  is  passing,"  he  is  aware 
that  " The  public,  and  the  public  papers  have  been  much 
occupied  lately  in  placing  us  in  a  point  of  opposition  to 
each  other."  He  then  says  the  issue  of  the  contest  was 
not  known  at  Philadelphia  on  the  16th  of  December,  the 
date  of  his  latest  advices  from  that  city,  thus  leaving  the 
impression  that  he  was  still  ignorant  of  the  result,  but  it  is 
manifest  from  the  whole  letter,  that  he  was  positively  in 
formed  of  it.  He  proceeds  to  declare  that  he  never  wished 
any  other  issue.  Then  follows  this  skilful,  Machiavelian 
combination  of  words.  "  It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  even 
you  may  be  cheated  out  of  your  succession  by  a  trick 
worthy  of  the  subtlety  of  your  arch  friend  of  New  York, 
who  has  been  able  to  make  of  your  real  friends  tools  for 


THOMAS   JEFFEKSOX.  167 

defeating  their  and  your  just  wishes.  Probably,  however,  he 
will  be  disappointed  as  to  you ;  and  my  inclinations  put  me 
out  of  his  reach."  In  this  passage,  Jefferson  would  induce 
Adams  to  believe  that  he  and  his  friends  have  a  right  to 
expect  his  re-election,  that  he  will  be  chosen  for  a  second 
term,  unless  Aaron  Burr  cheats  him  out  of  the  succession, 
that  the  writer  will  not  be  his  competitor,  and  will  be 
gratified  by  his  re-election.  By  thus  addressing  him,  Jeffer 
son  would  probably  achieve  the  following  results ;  he  would 
learn  whether  Adams  desired  a  re-election,  and  his  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  probability  of  such  re-election  ;  he  would 
ascertain  whether  Adams  regarded  Burr  favorably,  or  un 
favorably,  and  also  whether  the  former  expected  the  latter 
to  be  a  candidate  at  the  ensuing  presidential  election  ;  he 
would  secure  the  sympathy  if  not  the  support  of  Adams,  in 
case  he  did  not  desire  a  second  term,  and  Jefferson's  friends 
should  bring  him  forward  :  should  Adams  seek  a  re-election, 
and  Jefferson  also  aspire  to  the  Presidential  chair,  he  could 
more  effectually  mature  his  plans,  and  carry  on  his  campaign, 
when  the  attention  of  his  adversary  was  diverted  from  his 
movements.  Finally,  he  would  earn  the  favor,  perhaps  the 
gratitude  of  Adams,  for  use  in  future  emergencies. 

His  letter  next  expresses  his  preference  for  private  over 
public  life.  "I  have  no  ambition,'7  says  he  philosophi 
cally,  "  to  govern  men.  It  is  a  painful  and  thankless  office. 
....  I  leave  to  others  the  sublime  delights  of  exalted 
station.'7  He  declares  that  his  election  to  the  Presidency  in 
the  recent  contest,  would  have  been  "  oppressive  "  to  him. 
He  sets  forth  his  love  of  retirement,  and  his  aversion  to 
high  position  so  strongly,  that  a  person  who  should  read 
the  letter  without  any  knowledge  of  the  writer,  might  well 
believe  that  he  would  have  refused  to  serve,  had  he  been 
chosen  President,  and  wonder  why  he  did  not  resign  the 


168  NOTES   OX 

Vice-Presidency.  He  proceeds  to  say  that  his  "  sincere 
prayer"  is  that  Mr.  Adams's  administration  "  may  be  filled 
with  glory  and  happiness"  to  himself,  and  advantage  to  the 
country.  He  concludes  by  assuring  the  President-elect  that 
the  writer  retains  for  him  "  solid  esteem,"  and  "  sentiments 
of  sincere  respect  and  attachment."  This  letter  can  be  fully 
appreciated  only  by  a  careful  perusal  of  the  whole  of  it, 
while  bearing  in  mind,  the  party  and  personal  alienation  of 
Jefferson  from  Adams,  prior  to  the  election.  It  has  been 
supposed,  that  it  was  written  in  order  that  Jefferson  might 
be  invited  to  share  the  deliberations  of  the  cabinet,  which 
he  much  desired  to  do.  This  was  possibly  its  immediate 
object,  but  its  ulterior  aim  was  undoubtedly  much  higher. 

Jefferson's  repugnance  to  official  life,  and  ardent  love  of 
retirement  did  not  prevent  him  from  entering  upon  the 
duties  of  the  Vice-Presidency  at  the  appointed  time,  March 
4th,  1797.  Before  doing  so,  he  had  consulted  with  Mr. 
Madison,  as  to  the  proper  method  of  using  the  new  Presi 
dent  for  the  interest  of  the  Republican  party.  He  soon  be 
gan  to  intrigue  for  the  "succession."  As  usual  he  worked 
in  secret,  by  means  of  private  letters.  His  first  tentative 
missive  of  which  we  have  a  copy,  was  written  to  Adam's 
"  arch  friend  "  Burr,  in  regard  to  national  affairs,  with  an 
incidental  allusion  to  the  state  of  the  party,  and  its  prospects 
in  New  York.  This  letter,  dated  June  17th,  expresses 
gloomy  apprehensions  for  the  safety  of  free  institutions 
among  us,  and  intimates  that  unless  the  Federalists  be  ex 
pelled  from  power,  the  Revolutionary  war  would  have  been 
fought  in  vain.  He  asks  Burr's  opinion  on  these  subjects. 

On  June  24th,  he  despatched  a  letter  to  Governor  Rutledge 
of  South  Carolina,  wherein  he  pours  forth  lamentations  over 
the  condition  of  affairs,  and  sighs  for  the  repose  of  private 
life.  He  writes,  "This  is,  indeed,  a  most  humiliating  state 


THOMAS   JEFFEKSOX.  169 

of  things,  but  it  commenced  in  1 793."  .  .  .  "  We  had  in  1 793 
the  most  respectable  character  in  the  universe.  But  matters 
have  been  growing  worse  and  worse,  and  now,  we  are  low, 
indeed,  with  the  belligerents.  Their  kicks  and  cuffs  prove 
their  contempt ;"  which,  being  interpreted,  means  "  this 
humiliation  has  been  brought  upon  us  by  the  party  in  power. 
Don't  you  think,  my  friend,  there  ought  to  be  a  change?7' 
He  deplores  the  violence  of  political  passions.  "  Tranquility," 
he  continues,  "  is  the  old  man's  milk.  I  go  to  enjoy  it,  in 
a  few  days,  and  to  exchange  the  roar  of  bulls  and  bears 
for  the  prattle  of  my  grandchildren  and  senile  rest." 

As  we  read  these  words  we  pity  the  gentle  old  man,  bur 
dened  with  the  cares  of  office,  and  weary  of  the  strife  cf  con 
tending  factions.  But  pity  pauses,  when  it  is  suggested  to 
her  that  these  words,  addressed  to  the  Governor,  are  intended 
for  his  political  brother,  General  Pinckney,  who  may  possi 
bly  be  one  of  the  Federalist  candidates  at  the  next  Presi 
dential  election.  She  is  transformed  into  another  sentiment, 
when  she  perceives  that  Jefferson's  "senile  rest"  means 
more  than  his  wonted  activity  in  political  manoeuvres,  and 
that  his  letters  to  confidential  friends  evince  a  spirit  quite 
different  from  that  of  his  communication  to  Rutledge.  In 
it  there  is  an  almost  "ethereal  mildness."  To  Mr.  Madison, 
he  denounced  the  President's  first  message  as  "  inflamma 
tory,"  and  characterized  the  message,  recommending  that  the 
country  be  put  in  a  state  of  defence,  as  "  insane."  He  calls 
the  friends  of  the  President  "  War  Hawks,"  "  Adamites," 
"  Anglo-men  ;"  declares  that  his  alleged  reasons  for  martial 
preparations  are  not  plausible  enough  "to  impose  upon  the 
weakest  mind,"  and  arraigns  the  administration  for  "vio 
lations  of  the  Constitution,  propensities  to  war,  to  expense 
and  to  a  particular  foreign  connection."  He  contemptuously 
says  that  Mr.  Adams'  answers  to  the  addresses  that  pour  in 

12 


170  NOTES    OX 

upon  him  are  "  more  thrasonical  than  the  addresses  them 
selves/'  and  informs  Madison  that  the  advocates  of  a  war 
with  France  "talk  of  Septembrizing,  deportation,  and  the 
examples  of  quelling  sedition  set  by  the  French  Executive."* 
Instead  of  resting  contented  with  the  prattle  of  his  grand 
children,  he  wrote  a  long  confession  of  his  political  faith  to 
Mr.  Gerry;  denounced  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws ;  in 
veighed  against  the  "  usurpations"  of  the  Federal  Judiciary, 
and  proposed  measures  for  checking  them ;  opposed  the 
punishment  of  journalistic  libellers;  discussed  the  question 
of  the  impeachment  of  Senators;  watched  with  keen  in 
terest  the  negotiations  with  France,  and  with  a  still  keener 
interest  the  home  political  field ;  prepared  the  very  elabo 
rate  "  resolutions  of  '98, "  and  procured  their  adoption  (in 
modified  form)  by  the  Legislatures  of  Kentucky  and  Vir 
ginia ;  had  portions  of  them  a  second  time  proposed  to 
those  Legislatures ;  urged  Madison,  Monroe,  Grerry,  and  the 
aged  Pendleton,  of  Virginia,  to  attack  Federalism  or  vin 
dicate  Republicanism  through  the  press,  but  published  not 
a  line  of  his  own  production.  In  a  word,  he  directed  the 
operations  of  his  party  throughout  the  Union,  and  that  so 
efficient,  as  to  place  it  in  control  of  the  government. 

Is  it  possible  that  he,  who  said  and  did  these  things,  is 
the  same  person  who  penned  the  letter  of  December  28th, 
1796,  to  Mr.  Adams?  It  is  even  so.  In  that  letter,  Jeffer 
son  stated  that  his  "sincere  prayer7'  was  that  the  admin 
istration  of  the  President-elect  might  "  be  filled  with  glory 
and  happiness  to  him."  Yet  he  used  every  means  to  assail 
and  weaken  that  administration,  and  bring  it  into  hatred 
and  contempt.  In  that  letter,  he  intimated  to  Adams  that 

*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  Jefferson  was  Vice-President, 
when  he  thus  disparaged  the  President  and  his  friends. 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  171 

lie  would  not  be  displeased  at  his  re-election.  Yet  he  strained 
every  nerve  to  prevent  that  re-election.  In  that  letter,  he 
more  than  intimated  that  he  would  not  be  Adams7  com 
petitor  in  the  contest  for  the  Presidency,  yet  he  was  such 
competitor.  In  it,  he  expressed  strong  aversion  to  high 
office,  especially  to  that  of  President,  and  affirmed  that  he 
left  "to  others  the  sublime  delights  "  of  that  exalted  position, 
yet  he  so  managed  affairs  that  his  own  nomination  was  in 
evitable.  He  did  not  decline  when  nominated,  but  manifested 
an  earnest  desire  for  election,  notably,  when  the  choice 
devolved  upon  the  House  of  Representatives;  he  was 
elected,  and  served  his  term  with  no  hint  of  resignation. 
The  retention  of  the  letter  by  Mr.  Madison,  to  whom  it 
was  intrusted  with  discretion  to  retain  or  deliver  it,  does 
not  all  affect  one's  opinion  of  its  author. 

9.  On  June  19th,  1796,  Jefferson  wrote  Washington  :  "I 
learn  that  this  last  (General  H.  Lee)  has  thought  it  worth 
while  to  try  to  sow  tares  between  you  and  me,  by  represent 
ing  me  as  still  engaged  in  the  bustle  of  politics,  and  in 
turbulence  and  intrigue  against  the  government."  He  adds 
that  he  did  not  think  it  his  duty,  in  case  public  questions 
were  introduced  at  table,  to  abstain  from  expressing  his 
opinions  merely  because  he  had  been  a  member  of  the 
Cabinet.  Then,  to  show  how  completely  he  was  weaned 
from  politics,  he  discusses  "  pease  and  clover "  and  the 
"  Carolina  drill/7  In  this  letter,  Jefferson  indignantly  dis 
claims  all  attention  to  political  affairs,  or  concern  in  them, 
and  appeals  to  Washington's  knowledge  of  his  character  in 
confirmation  of  his  statements;  yet  on  the  preceding  April 
24th,  he  had  written  the  Mazzei  letter,  filled  with  abuse  and 
denunciation  of  his  political  opponents.  On  June  12th, 
seven  days  before  the  letter  to  Washington,  he  wrote  to  Mr. 
Monroe  that  "  Congress  have  risen.  .  .  .  One  man  (the 


172  NOTES    ON 

President)  outweighs  them  all  in  influence  over  the  people. 
.  .  .  Republicanism  must  lie  on  its  oars.  We  are  com 
pletely  saddled  and  bridled  "  by  the  Federalists.  He  points 
out  that  there  must  soon  be  a  change,  and  exhorts  Monroe 
in  the  meantime  to  be  patient.  On  July  10th,  he  again 
writes  Monroe  respecting  the  political  situation.  These 
three  letters  certainly  do  not  evince  an  entire  unconcern 
about  political  matters.  When  one  reads  them,  and  remem 
bers  that  in  October  of  the  same  year  Jefferson  was  elected 
Vice-President,  it  is  hard  to  believe,  notwithstanding  his 
disclaimer,  that  he  was  not  "still  engaged  in  the  bustle  of 
politics." 

10.  Although  he   had  slandered  Hamilton,  he  told  Mr. 
Thomas  M.  Bay  ley  that  he  was  really  the  friend  of  Ham 
ilton. 

11.  In   his  letters  to   Aaron   Burr,  Jefferson   professed 
esteem,  regard,  and  friendship  for  him.     In  his  secret  ar 
chives,  he  recorded  that  Burr  was  venal,  and  unworthy  of 
confidence. 

12.  He   publicly    expressed    indignation    mingled    with 
horror  against  those,  who  wrote  or  spoke  favorably  of  the 
English  Government.    Privately,  he  wrote  to  John  Adams 
that  the  "  English  Constitution  is  acknowledged  to  be  better 
than  all  which  have  preceded  it." 

13.  In   his   Ana  is  this  entry  :  "  I  have   never  done  a 
single  act,  or  been  concerned  in  any  transaction,  which   I 
feared  to  have   fully  laid   open."     This   was   part  of   an 
alleged  conversation  with  Burr.     His  correspondence  by  no 
means  substantiates  this  declaration.      Many  of  his  letters 
contain   an   injunction   of  secrecy,  others,  intimations  that 
they  are  confidential.     So  anxious  was  he  to  conceal  some 
of  his  transactions,  that  he  did  not  venture  to  intrust  com 
munications  respecting  them  to  the  mails,  but  retained  them 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  173 

until   they  could   be  transmitted   by  reliable  private  mes 
sengers. 

14.  In  writing  to  Washington  himself,  or  to  his  known 
friends,  as  well  as  in  personal  intercourse  with  him,  Jefferson 
evinced  a  profound  admiration  for  the  General,  and  seemed 
greatly  pleased  by  his  esteem  and  approbation.     But  he 
secretly  intrigued  against  him,  disparaged  him  in  letters  to 
his  enemies,  and,  it  would  seem,  scandalously  defamed  him 
through  the  agency  of  others.     For  fifteen  years,  Jefferson 
hoodwinked  this  renowned  man,  his  friend  and  benefactor, 
who  was  too  frank  himself  to  suspect  insincerity  in  others. 

15.  He  censured  Adams  and  Hamilton  for  aspiring  to 
high  official  position,  upon  the  ground  that  such  aspiration 
was  a  departure  from  those  principles  of  equality  without 
which  liberty  could  not  exist — that  a  man  had  no  right 
to  desire  authority  over  other  men.     At  the  same  time,  he 
was  secretly  working  and  planning  for  his  own  elevation 
to  power. 

16.  But  perhaps   the  strongest   evidence  of  Jefferson's 
insincerity  is  to  be  found  in  the  contrast  between  his  pub 
lic,  and  his  private  expressions  of  opinion  concerning  the 
people.     During  the  greatest  part  of  his  life,  he  publicly 
asserted    their    incorruptible    virtue;    he    maintained  the 
wisdom  of  their  judgment,  and  treated  their  wishes  with  the 
utmost  deference ;  he  was  ever  on  the  alert  to  detect  and 
thwart  some  real  or  imaginary  infraction  of  their  liberties; 
he  loudly  proclaimed  the  dignity  and  grandeur  of  human 
nature.     In  his  own  time,  he  was  greeted  by  the  multitude 
as   "the  people's  friend;77  he  is,  to-day,  regarded  as  the 
apostle  and  champion  of  popular  rights,  and  venerated  as 
the  "  Father  of  American  Democracy."     Yet  his  letters  to 
his  intimate  friends  abound  in   sentiments  concerning  the 
multitude,  quite  opposite  to  those  publicly  expressed,  and 


174  NOTES   ON 

show  that  he  really  entertained  a  profound  contempt  for 
mankind. 

These  letters  contain  repeated  declarations  of  the  decep 
tions  practiced  by  priests  upon  the  people  in  all  ages  and 
countries.  The  assertion  of  these  deceptions  is  a  denial  of 
the  intelligence  of  the  people.  In  1785,  he  writes,  "  /  con 
sider  the  class  of  artificers  as  the  panders  of  vice;  the 
instruments  by  which  the  liberties  of  a  country  are  gener 
ally  overturned."  He  complained  of  the  ingratitude  of 
the  people,  when  they  blamed  his  incompetency  at  the  time 
of  the  invasion  of  Virginia,  while  he  was  Governor. 
Further  evidence  of  his  low  estimate  of  his  fellow- men  is 
found  in  his  oft  expressed  disbelief  in  the  sincerity  of  those, 
whose  political  or  religious  opinions  differed  from  his  own  ; 
in  his  imputing  improper  motives  to  his  political  opponents, 
and  in  his  allegations  that  they  stooped  to  base  means  to 
promote  the  success  of  their  principles. 

In  his  letter  of  March  29th,  1801,  to  Mr.  Gerry,  he  at 
tributes  mercenary  motives  to  all  ministers  of  religion,  and 
to  the  editors  of  the  Federal  journals.  He  therein  charges 
his  leading  political  opponents  in  New  England  with  pros 
tituting  government,  religion,  and  justice  to  the  promotion 
of  their  schemes,  and  with  deluding  the  people.  While 
asserting  that  the  delusion  has  been  greater  there  than  else 
where,  he  admits  a  popular  political  delusion  throughout 
the  country.  This  letter  alone  would  suffice  to  show 
the  insincerity  of  Jefferson's  professions  of  regard  for 
the  people,  and  his  distrust  of  their  ability  for  self- 
government,  since  it  reveals  his  opinion  that  most  of  their 
political,  and  all  their  religious,  leaders  are  mercenary, 
selfish  impostors,  and  that  the  rest  of  the  community  is 
liable  to  be  duped  by  these  impostors.  Yet  in  this  very 
letter,  he  flatters  the  people,  tells  Mr.  Gerry  that  "  they 


THOMAS    JEFFERSOX.  175 

will  wake  like  Samson  from  his  sleep,  and  carry  away 
the  gates  and  posts  of  the  city/7  and  that  "  you,  my 
friend,  are  destined  to  rally  them/7  If  they  had  been 
deluded  by  the  Federalists,  why  should  not  the  Republi 
cans  practice  upon  them,  especially  as  they  were  in  the 
latter  case,  to  be  deceived  for  their  own  welfare?  On 
January  16th,  1787,  he  writes  to  Edward  Carririgton, 
"  Man  is  the  only  animal  that  devours  his  own  kind."  In 
a  letter  to  Jedediah  Morse,  he  alludes  to  the  enormities  of 
the  French  Jacobins  and  thus  continues  :  "  Yet  these  were 
men,  and  we  and  our  descendants  will  be  no  more.  The 
present  is  a  case  where  we  are  to  guard  against  ourselves, 
not  against  ourselves  as  we  are,  but  as  we  may  be,  for  who 
can  now  imagine  what  we  may  become  under  circumstances 
not  now  imaginable?"  In  1821,  he  wrote  to  John  Adams 
"  what  a  bedlamite  is  man  ?" 

In  a  letter  to  Mann  Page,  dated  August  30th,  1795,  he 
paints  the  upper  classes  as  dishonest,  the  lower  as  contemp 
tible.  He  says:  "  I  have  always  found  the  rogues  would 
be  uppermost,  and  I  do  not  know  that  the  proportion  men 
tioned  by  Montaigne,  fourteen-fifteenths,  is  too  strong  for 
the  higher  orders,  and  for  those  who  rising  above  the  swinish 
multitude,  always  contrive  to  nestle  themselves  in  the  places 
of  power."  Mr.  Jefferson's  preference  that  the  Represen 
tatives  in  Congress  should  be  chosen  by  the  Legislatures, 
rather  than  by  the  people,  has  been  mentioned  under  another 
head.  Writing  to  an  intimate  friend,  respecting  a  work  called 
The  Political  Progress,  he  thus  expresses  himself:  a  They 
(this  and  another  work)  disgust  me  indeed  by  opening  to  my 
view  the  ulcerated  state  of  the  human  mind.  The  reflections 
into  which  it  leads  us  are  not  very  flattering  to  the  human 
species.  In  the  whole  animal  kingdom,  I  recollect  no 
family  but  man,  steadily  and  systematically  employed 


176  NOTES    ON 

in  the  destruction  of  itself.  Nor  does  what  is  called 
civilization  produce  any  other  effect,  than  to  teach  him  to 
pursue  the  principle  of  the  helium  omnium  inter  omnia, 
on  a  greater  scale,  and  instead  of  the  little  contests  between 
tribe  and  tribe,  to  comprehend  all  the  quarters  of  the 
earth  in  the  same  work  of  destruction.  If  to  this  we 
add,  that  as  to  other  animals,  the  lions  and  tigers  are 
mere  lambs  compared  with  man  as  a  destroyer,  we  must 
conclude  that  nature  has  been  able  to  find  in  man  alone,  a 
sufficient  barrier  against  the  too  great  multiplication  of 
other  animals,  and  of  man  himself." 

No  enemy  of  popular  rights,  no  haughty  tyrant,  no  pro 
fessed  misanthropist,  would  probably  place  a  lower  estimate 
on  his-  fellow-creatures  than  does  this  vaunted  friend  of  the 
people,  in  his  private  letters.  He  believes  that  men  are 
imbeciles,  liable  to  be  duped  by  every  impostor;  that  they 
are  bedlamites,  perpetually  engaged  in  the  work  of  destroy 
ing  each  other;  that  the  upper  classes  are  rogues;  the 
lower,  "a  swinish  multitude;''  that  their  state  is  so  "  ulce 
rated  "  as  to  excite  disgust.  Worst  of  all,  he  sees  no 
prospect  of  their  emerging  from  their  present  degradation. 
In  his  opinion,  civilization  only  enables  these  miserable 
beings  to  maim  and  murder  on  a  larger  saale,  and  "  we  and 
our  descendants "  are  liable  to  become  even  such  as  the 
Jacobin  butchers  of  the  French  Revolution.  Had  Jeffer 
son  never  written  a  letter,  the  hollowness  of  his  professions 
of  attachment  to  the  people  might  have  been  inferred. 
His  aristocratic  birth  and  associations,  his  refined  tastes, 
his  studious  habits,  his  love  of  tranquility,  his  peculiar  sen 
sitiveness,  all  combined  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  his 
hearty  sympathy  with  the  rude  and  ignorant  populace. 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  177 


CHAPTER  XXL 

JEFFERSON   AND    THE    FRENCH    REVOLUTION. 

IN  a  letter,  dated  January  3d,  1793,  and  addressed  to 
James  Short,  he  thus  writes  of  that  Revolution.  "  In  the 
struggle,  which  was  necessary,  many  guilty  persons  fell 
without  the  forms  of  law,  and  with  them,  some  innocent. 
These  I  deplore  as  much  as  anybody,  but  I  deplore  them 
as  I  should  have  done  had  they  fallen  in  battle.  It  was  ne 
cessary  to  use  the  arm  of  the  people,  a  machine,  not  quite 
so  blind  as  balls  and  bombs,  but  blind  to  a  certain  degree. 
A  few  of  their  innocent  friends  met  at  their  hands  the  fate 
of  enemies,  but  time  and  truth  will  rescue  and  embalm 
their  memories,  while  their  posterity  will  be  enjoying  that 
liberty  for  which  they  would  never  have  hesitated  to  offer 
up  their  lives.  The 'liberty  of  the  whole  earth  was  depend 
ing  on  the  issue  of  the  contest,  and  was  ever  such  a  prize 
won  with  so  little  innocent  blood  ?"  He  then  states  that 
his  affections  were  wounded  by  the  loss  of  some  who  per 
ished  in  the  Revolution,  and  continues :  "  Rather  than  it 
should  have  failed,  I  would  have  seen  half  of  the  earth 
desolated.  Were  there  but  an  Adam  and  Eve  left  in  every 
country,  if  left  free,  it  would  be  better  than  it  now  is." 
Not  only  did  Jefferson  entertain  these  senseless  and  atro 
cious  sentiments,  but  in  the  same  letter  he  declared  that  they 
were  hehl  by  ninety-nine  hundreths  of  the  people  in  the 
United  States.  So  anxious  was  he  to  conceal  from  his  fel 
low-citizens  the  contents  of  the  letter,  in  which  this  shock 
ing  allegation  is  made,  that  he  more  than  once  mentioned 


178  .NOTES  ON 

to  Mr.  Short  its  private  nature,  and  caused  it  to  be  sent 
through  the  Spanish  legation. 

During  the  Reign  of  Terror  in  France,  the  painter,  David, 
wished  to  have  the  number  of  daily  executions  increased. 
It  is  related,  that  in  communicating  this  wish  to  the  Revo 
lutionary  Tribunal,  he  employed  metaphorically  an  expres 
sion  familiar  to  the  votaries  of  his  own  beautiful  art,  and 
said  with  fiendish  humor  :  "  We  must  grind  in  a  little  more 
red."  Collot  d'Herbois,  during  the  orgie  of  blood  at  Lyons, 
slew,  in  one  day,  fifteen  hundred  of  his  fellow-creatures. 
Marat,  the  tawny  tyrant,  whom  Charlotte  Corday  smote  to 
death,  recommended  the  slaughter  of  270,000  human  vic 
tims,  in  order  to  insure  the  triumph  of  liberty.  Another 
friend  of  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,  proposed  to  mount 
the  guillotine  on  wheels,  so  as  to  expedite  the  work  of  death. 
We  shudder  at  these  inhuman  deeds,  and  execrate  the 
savages  who  performed  or  proposed  them.  What  then 
shall  be  thought  of  Jefferson,  who  rather  than  the  French 
Revolution  should  have  failed,  would  have  seen  half  the 
earth  made  desolate,  nay,  would  have  been  content  to  have 
but  two  persons  left  in  each  country  ? 


THOMAS   JEFFEKSON.  179 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

EFFECTS   OF    HIS    LIFE   AND    DOCTRINES. 

"  THE  evil  that  men  do  lives  after  them."  Many  of  the 
ills  that  now  afflict  the  body  politic,  have  sprung  from  the 
life  and  writings  of  Jefferson.  One  of  his  theories,  brooded 
over  by  the  spirit  of  that  State  Sovereignty  fanatic,  John 
C.  Calhoun,  brought  forth  the  two  abortions,  nullification, 
and  secession,  and  drenched  the  land  in  fraternal  blood. 
Another,  preached  and  applied  by  unscrupulous  men, 
greedy  for  popularity,  has  unfurled  the  flag  of  repudiation 
in  eight  states  of  the  Union ;  has  fixed  the  stigma  of  finan 
cial  dishonor  upon  the  venerable  "Mother  of  presidents;"  has 
so  perverted  and  blinded  another  great  State,  that,  though 
rich  and  abundantly  able  to  discharge  all  her  obligations, 
she  sent  forth  agents  to  compound  with  her  creditors,  and 
squander  in  useless  expeditions  funds  that  should  have 
been  expended  in  payment  of  her  debts.  These  agents 
quartered  themselves  at  the  best  hotels,  "  fared  sumptuously 
every  day,"  and,  bewitched  by  the  hag  that  had  corrupted 
their  State,  into  the  delusion  that  they  were  engaged  in  a 
laudable  business,  with  heads  erect  and  self-satisfied  air, 
announced  that  the  proud  Commonwealth,  which  they  repre 
sented,  had  magnanimously  consented  to  return  to  her 
helpless  creditors  a  little  more  than  one-half  of  the  money, 
that  they  loaned  her  on  the  security  of  her  honor. 

Jefferson's  political  philosophy  awakened  a  desire  for 
power  in  the  meanest  individuals.  He  and  his  partisans 
taught  that  there  was  not  only  "  a  universal  right,  but  a  uni- 


180  NOTES   ON 

versal  capacity  to  govern.  Advantages  of  education  and 
morals  were  denied,  and  to  fill  an  inferior  place  in  society 
was  the  result  not  of  an  inferior  ability,  but  of  less  courage 
and  weaker  purpose."  The  drunken  and^rTbald  Fame' 
was  adduced  to  show  that  infidelity  and  insubordination 
opened  a  short  road  to  distinction.  To  Jefferson  mainly 
we  owe  it,  that  public  stations  of  trust  and  responsibility  are 
often  occupied  by  the  incompetent  and  the  unworthy  ;  that 
the  sacred  interests  of  education  are  frequently  confided  to 
ignorant  and  unprincipled  men ;  that  demagogues  ride 
triumphantly  to  places  of  distinction,  and  that  political 
corruption  prevails  in  the  land.  "To  him  mainly  we  owe 
it,  that  the  hireling  of  party  finds  reason  for  the  denial  of 
justice  in  the  opinions  of  the  applicant;"  that  so  little  respect  is 
entertained  for  our  legal  tribunals;  that  a  pure  and  venerable 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  ridiculed,  taunted, 
and  denounced  for  his  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case ; 
that  three  Justices  of  the  same  Court  have  been  repeatedly 
charged  with  disregarding  law  while  members  of  the  Elec 
toral  Commission,  and  deciding  according  to  their  political 
predilections;  that  any  contemptible  scribbler  is  at  libertv, 
unrebuked,  to  criticise  and  declare  void  the  decisions  of  the 
most  learned  and  august  tribunal,  and  that  he  is  often 
applauded  for  the  exercise  of  that  liberty. 

Are  these  things  so?  Has  the  judicial  ermine  been 
dragged  in  the  mire  of  partisan  politics?  Has  the  title  of 
Judge,  formerly  so  revered,  been  almost  shorn  of  honor? 
Has  one  Judge  been  shot  in  Kentucky,  by  a  litigant  whom 
his  interpretation  of  the  law  displeased?  Has  one  been 
killed  in  Texas  fora  similar  reason,  and  have  other  minis 
ters  of  justice  in  that  State  been  threatened  with  a  like  fate, 
unless  certain  anticipated  decisions  are  satisfactory  ?  All 
this,  though  shameful,  is  scarcely  surprising,  for  the  man 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON.  181 

whom  the  people  delight  to  honor,  from  whose  lips  they 
gladly  receive  instruction,  and  who  is  the  political  oracle 
of  many,  denounced  some  of  the  rulings  of  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  and  asserted  that  they  encouraged  treason  and  pro 
tected  traitors  ;  pardoned  one  or  more  convicts,  not  because 
he  believed  they  had  not  committed  the  offences  charged, 
but  because  he  deemed  unconstitutional  the  law  under 
which  they  were  convicted  ;  declared  that  he  would  not  be 
guided  in  his  official  actions  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  most  offensively  styled  the  Federal 
judiciary,  "A  corps  of  sappers  arid  miners,  working  under 
ground,  to  undermine  the  foundations  of  our  confederate 
fabric." 

Is  sedition  fostered  to  the  overthrow  of  the  law  ?  Is  armed 
resistance  to  constituted  authority  regarded  as  a  legitimate 
method  of  securing  the  redress  of  real  or  imaginary  griev 
ances  ?  Are  "  strikes,"  attended  with  intimidation  and  vio 
lence,  winked  at  and  encouraged  ?  Is  a  riot  a  frequent 
means  of  obtaining  an  increase  of  wages?  Is  a  powerful 
combination,  obstructing  by  force  and  arms  the  great 
avenues  of  trade  and  travel,  and  creating  a  panic  in  every 
department  of  business,  but  a  trivial  affair?  Is  a  mob, 
usurping  the  functions  of  the  legally  appointed  officers,  and 
ruthlessly  hanging  in  hot  blood  the  innocent  and  the  guilty, 
too  often  with  shocking  cruelty,  mildly  condemned,  or  half 
approved,  instead  of  being  universally  denounced  ?  Did 
one  of  these  blind  agents  of  popular  vengeance,  at  the  very 
doors  of  a  Court-House,  tear  from  the  custody  of  the  sheriff 
ten  men  and  murder  them  ?  Have  these  incidents  of  a  half- 
civilized  society,  gradually  extended  themselves  from  our 
new  Western  communities,  where  the  machinery  of  govern 
ment  is  yet  but  imperfect,  to  the  older  States  where  all  the 
appliances  for  the  lawful  punishment  of  crime  are  found  in 


182  NOTES   ON   THOMAS   JEFFERSON. 

full  operation  ?  Are  the  participants  in  these  unlawful 
and  demoralizing  outbreaks  seldom  punished  ?  For  this 
lamentable  state  of  affairs,  the  responsibility,  in  great  part, 
rests  upon  him  who  taught  that  rioters  should  be  lightly 
dealt  with;  that  they  should  generally  be  pardoned  and 
pacified. 

In  a  word,  the  life,  the  doctrines,  and  the  extraordinary 
influence  of  Thomas  Jefferson  have  done  more  than  the 
life,  doctrines  and  influence  of  any  other  individual,  living 
or  dead,  to  produce  and  foster  the  restlessness,  the  self- 
assertion,  the  restiveness  under  parental  control,  the  dimin 
ished  reverence  for  all  that  is  sacred  and  venerable,  the 
contempt  of  lawful  authority,  human  and  Divine,  the 
spirit  of  insubordination,  the  tendency  to  turbulence,  that 
now  exist  among  us,  filling  thoughtful  minds  with  gloomy 
apprehensions  in  regard  to  the  future  of  our  country. 
Verily,  "  The  evil  that  men  do  lives  after  them." 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


ttttrf*** 


4N-S£ 


RE 


g^gra 


Nu>/iV63-10Ali 


REC'P  LP 


•ete^-i 


^ 


t'64ltli 


pgr.'P  LP 


UPR- 


0-64-ftPN\ 


^^ 


*S  6R 


-W*i» 

REC'D  LD 


^s&- 


•Ra-2 


LD  21A-40m-4,'63 
(D6471slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


